Landlord challenged eviction on grounds of rent default due to unregistered enhancement clause. Court held unregistered document containing lease term exceeding one year is inadmissible, dismissing revision.
Revision petition dismissed; decisions of Courts below upheld; eviction order standing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
C.R. No.2043 of 1998
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.2043 of 1998 Date of Decision. 30.08.2012
Shri Dharam Vir son of Shri Jagat Ram resident of 10, Ramesh Colony, Jalandhar
.....Petitioner
Versus
Shri Surinder Pal Singh son of Shri Teja Singh resident at Shop No.10, Ramesh Colony, Jalandhar City
.....Respondent
Present: Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.
None for the respondent.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
K. KANNAN J.
C.R. No.2043 of 1998 -2-
as found in the rent note and this, according to him, had amounted to a default and that he was liable for eviction.
-3-
C.R. No.2043 of 1998
" 107. Leases how made .-
Provided that the State Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that leases of immoveable property, other than leases from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent, or any class of such leases, may be made by unregistered instrument or by oral agreement without delivery of possession.
and the lessee has been the subject of adjudication several times before the Court and the law is exposited through a decision of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Pratap Singh VS. Rameshwar Prasad (1998) 7 SCC
602 . The Supreme Court laid down that language employed under Section 107(3) does not anywhere state that the lease has to be signed by both the parties. It merely states that it should be bilateral and the fact that only one of the parties has signed will not make it any the less bilateral if there is evidence to support that the lease was approved by the lessor where the lessee alone was signing. In this case, the document itself was produced by the landlord and that it was an instrument of lease cannot, therefore, be denied at all.
C.R. No.2043 of 1998 -4-
Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act clearly states that lease in excess of a period of one year requires registration. The lease deed no doubt stipulates the initial period of lease as 11 months and if the recital has stood only thus, the document would not have required registration. If the document also contained a provision for an increase in rent after a period of 3 years then the recital will have to be seen in the context of the whole document and that would itself be a proof for the fact that the lease was not merely for a period of less one year but for a period in excess of three years and therefore, the interdict under Section 17 was attracted. This point was dealt with by the Privy Council in Durga Prasad Singh Vs. Rajindra Narain Bakshi 1913(40) IA 223 that confirmed the decision of the Calcutta High Court where it held that an agreement to reduce the rent was inadmissible in evidence to vary the terms of the lease. The Court held that a document which would vary the essential terms of existing lease such as the amount of rent, the time for payment of rent thereof and the consequence of default amounted to a fresh lease. In so far as the provision for increase after a period of 3 years was concerned, therefore, it should be taken as a clause where a lease operated for a period in excess of 3 years when the clause for enhancement was operative. This must, therefore, be taken as an alteration for terms for a lease in excess of 3 years and therefore, the document was inadmissible. The inevitable consequence of a variation in terms of lease for a period in excess of one year was dealt with an English decision in Sanderson Vs. Grave (1875) LR 10 EX 234 in the context of English Statute of Frauds where Bramwell B had said "Unless a note in writing is necessary in every case of alteration, it
C.R. No.2043 of 1998 -5-
is required in none, so that in the name of alteration something wholly different might be established." (see Mulla's Registration Act, 25th Edition 2012 P 123).
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE
August 30, 2012 Pankaj*
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act requires a lease document signed by only one party but accepted by the other to be bilateral.
Whether a lease document stipulating an increase in rent after an extended period requires registration under Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act.
Whether an unregistered document creating a lease in excess of one year is inadmissible for enforcing higher rent.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajendra Pratap Singh VS. Rameshwar PrasadApplied¶33
(1998) 7 SCC 602 · Who else cites this
Durga Prasad Singh Vs. Rajindra Narain BakshiRelied on¶37
Durga Prasad Singh Vs. Rajindra Narain Bakshi 1913(40) IA 223
Sanderson Vs. GraveReferred¶37
Sanderson Vs. Grave (1875) LR 10 EX 234
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shri Dharam Vir
Shri Surinder Pal Singh
Kannan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
