East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 – s. 13 – Registration Act, 1908 – s. 17(1) (d) – Appellant-landlord filed an application u/s. 13 of the Act, 1949 and sought eviction of respondent-tenant along with arrears of rent, house tax and interest on the arrears of rent – The Rent Controller held that rent note is not signed by both the parties – It was further held that although time is not specified, but it is not a lease deed, so not compulsorily registrable – The Rent Controller held that tenant was in arrears of rent and house tax so the respondent-tenant is liable to eviction from the premises in dispute – The Appellate Court did not agree with the findings of the Rent Controller that rent note was not compulsory registrable and set aside the judgment of the Rent Controller – Aggrieved, the appellant filed a revision before the High Court and the same was dismissed – On appeal, held: The present is a case where rent deed does not prescribe any period for which it is executed – When the lease deed does not mention the period of tenancy, other conditions of the lease/rent deed and intention of the parties has to be gathered to find out the true nature of the lease deed/rent deed – The rent note contains only monthly rent and payment month by month – As per law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Das, there shall be a presumption that the tenancy in the present case is monthly tenancy – When the clauses of rent note are cumulatively read, the intention of the tenant is more clear that tenancy was only monthly tenancy, which could have been terminated on default of payment of rent by 5th day of any month or by notice of one month – The rent deed did not confer any right to tenant to continue in the tenancy for a period of more than one year nor it can be said that tenancy was created for a period of more than one year – Therefore, the rent not was not such kind of rent note, which requires compulsory registration u/s. 17(1)(d) of the Act, 1908 – The Appellate Court after holding that document-rent deed was compulsorily registrable and having not registered allowed the appeal – No finding was returned by the Appellate Court that tenant was not in default and tenant has deposited the necessary amount to save himself from eviction – Also, there was no finding by the Appellate Court regarding the liability of the tenant to pay the house tax – Thus, the judgment of the Appellate Court is unsustainable – The judgment and decree of the Rent Controller directing eviction of the tenant restored.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The rent note, which this Court is considering contains only monthly rent and payment month by month. As per law laid down by this Court in Ram Kumar Das there shall be a presumption that the tenancy in the present case is monthly tenancy. When the clauses of rent note are cumulatively read, the intention of the tenant is more than clear that tenancy was only monthly tenancy, which could have been terminated on default of payment of rent by 5th day of any month or by notice of one month. The rent deed did not confer any right to tenant to continue in the tenancy for a period of more than one year nor it can be said that tenancy was created for a period of more than one year. Clause (9) of rent note, which noticed the promise of the tenant of payment of rent by increasing 10% each year was a promise contingent on tenancy being continued beyond one year but cannot make the tenancy year to year or tenancy for a period of more than one year. Present was a case of tenancy for which no period was specified and looking to all the clauses cumulatively, this Court finds that the rent note was not such kind of rent note, which requires compulsory registration under Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908. [Para 19] [275G-H; 276-A-C]
2. One may further notice that Rent Controller had returned a finding regarding rate of rent @Rs.2,000/- per month and further the tenant was liable to pay the house tax, which was not paid from 1999 to 2005 and the decree of eviction was passed accordingly. The Appellate Court although accepted the finding of the Rent Controller that rate of rent was @Rs.2,000/- and not Rs.1,000/- but merely on the finding that landlord cannot claim 10% increase of rent every year since the document was not registered had allowed the appeal and set side the judgment. There is no specific finding by the Appellate Court regarding the liability of the tenant to pay the house tax. The Appellate Court after holding that document-rent deed was compulsorily registrable and having not registered allowed the appeal. No finding was returned by the Appellate Court that tenant was not in default and tenant has deposited the necessary amount to save himself from eviction. This Court thus, is of the view that the judgment of the Appellate Court is unsustainable on the above ground also. This Court thus, is of the view that the judgment and decree of the Rent Controller directing eviction ought not to have been interfered by the Appellate Court. [Para 20] [276C-G]
Ram Kumar Das v. Jagdish Chandra Deo, Dhabal Deb and Another AIR 1952 SC 23 : [1952] SCR 269
– relied on.
Kashi Nath and Ors. v. Abdur Rahman Khan and Ors. AIR 1922 All. 54 ; Mengh Raj v. Nand Lal and Ors. AIR 1939 Lah. 558 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.