Supreme Court Allows Landlord's Appeal in Rent Dispute Over Unregistered Rent Note — Holds Monthly Tenancy Not Requiring Registration Under Section 17(1)(d) of Registration Act, 1908. The Court Remits Matter to Appellate Court to Determine Whether Tenant Defaulted in Payment of Rent and House Tax Under East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

  • 7
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal arose from a landlord-tenant dispute concerning a shop in Punjab. The appellant-landlord, Siri Chand (since deceased, represented by legal representatives), had let out a shop to the respondent-tenant, Surinder Singh, on a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- per month under a rent note dated 27.07.1993. The rent note, signed only by the tenant, contained clauses for monthly rent, payment of house tax and electricity bills, a 10% yearly increase in rent, and a provision that the landlord could terminate the tenancy by giving one month's notice. The landlord filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, seeking eviction on grounds of non-payment of rent from 28.01.2004 to 28.02.2005 and house tax arrears from 1999 to 2005. The Rent Controller allowed the eviction, holding the rent note proved and the tenant in arrears. On appeal, the Appellate Court held that the rent note was compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908, because the 10% yearly increase clause indicated an intention for a lease exceeding one year, and therefore the clause regarding rent increase could not be relied upon. The Appellate Court set aside the eviction order without recording a finding on whether the tenant had defaulted in payment of rent and house tax. The High Court dismissed the landlord's revision, affirming the Appellate Court's view on registration. The Supreme Court granted leave and heard the appeal. The Supreme Court examined the rent note and found that it did not specify any term; it created a monthly tenancy with rent payable monthly. The Court held that the rent note was not a lease from year to year, nor for a term exceeding one year, nor reserving a yearly rent, and therefore did not require registration under Section 17(1)(d). The Court further held that the Appellate Court erred in setting aside the eviction order without determining whether the tenant was in default of rent and house tax. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the Appellate Court and the High Court, and remitted the matter to the Appellate Court for fresh consideration on the issue of default, while clarifying that the rent note was valid and enforceable.

Headnote

A) Registration Act, 1908 - Compulsory Registration - Section 17(1)(d) - Lease from year to year or for term exceeding one year - A rent note providing for monthly payment of rent without specifying any period does not create a lease from year to year or for a term exceeding one year, and is not compulsorily registrable - The mere presence of a clause for 10% yearly increase does not convert a monthly tenancy into a lease for a term exceeding one year - Held that the rent note was not required to be registered under Section 17(1)(d) (Paras 7-14).

B) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Eviction - Section 13 - Arrears of rent and house tax - Appellate Court's duty - The Appellate Court, while setting aside the eviction order, must record a finding on whether the tenant was in default of payment of rent and house tax - Without such finding, the order is unsustainable - Held that the matter be remitted to the Appellate Court for fresh consideration on the issue of default (Paras 15-17).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the rent note dated 27.07.1993 required compulsory registration under Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908, and whether the Appellate Court could set aside the eviction order without recording a finding that there was no default in payment of rent and house tax.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and the Appellate Court, and remitted the matter to the Appellate Court for fresh consideration on the issue of whether the tenant was in default of payment of rent and house tax, in accordance with law. The Court held that the rent note was not compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908.

Law Points

  • Registration Act
  • 1908
  • Section 17(1)(d) does not apply to monthly tenancy without fixed term
  • East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act
  • 1949
  • Section 13
  • Eviction for arrears of rent and house tax
  • Appellate Court must record finding on default before setting aside eviction order
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (SC) (6) 26

Civil Appeal No. 2617 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 9866 of 2019)

2020-06-17

Ashok Bhushan

Siri Chand (Deceased) Through LRs.

Surinder Singh

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal against High Court order dismissing revision in landlord-tenant eviction dispute.

Remedy Sought

Appellant-landlord sought eviction of tenant for non-payment of rent and house tax, and enforcement of rent note clauses.

Filing Reason

Tenant failed to pay rent from 28.01.2004 to 28.02.2005 and house tax from 1999 to 2005.

Previous Decisions

Rent Controller allowed eviction; Appellate Court set aside eviction holding rent note compulsorily registrable; High Court dismissed revision.

Issues

Whether the rent note dated 27.07.1993 required compulsory registration under Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908. Whether the Appellate Court could set aside the eviction order without recording a finding that there was no default in payment of rent and house tax.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the rent note was not compulsorily registrable as it created a monthly tenancy, and the Appellate Court erred in setting aside eviction without finding no default. Respondent (not present) had earlier contended that rent was Rs.1,000/- per month and the rent note was fabricated on blank paper.

Ratio Decidendi

A rent note creating a monthly tenancy without specifying a term, with rent payable monthly, does not constitute a lease from year to year, for a term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent, and is therefore not compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908. An Appellate Court cannot set aside an eviction order without recording a finding on whether the tenant was in default of payment of rent and other dues.

Judgment Excerpts

The rent deed does not provide for any specific period for which the rent deed was executed. When a rent deed/lease deed does not provide for a period and when it provides for payment of rent monthly, whether tenancy can be treated from year to year or for any term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent? The rent deed does not reserve yearly rent, hence the third condition as noted above is not applicable. The present is a case where rent deed does not prescribe any period for which it is executed.

Procedural History

Landlord filed eviction application under Section 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 before Rent Controller on 18.03.2006. Rent Controller allowed eviction on 30.11.2011. Tenant appealed to Appellate Authority, which set aside eviction on 30.05.2014. Landlord filed revision before Punjab and Haryana High Court, which dismissed on 05.09.2018. Landlord then appealed to Supreme Court by special leave petition.

Acts & Sections

  • Registration Act, 1908: Section 2(7), Section 17(1)(d)
  • East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949: Section 13
  • Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Section 106
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Landlord's Appeal in Rent Dispute Over Unregistered Rent Note — Holds Monthly Tenancy Not Requiring Registration Under Section 17(1)(d) of Registration Act, 1908. The Court Remits Matter to Appellate Court to Determine Whether ...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Directs Execution of Share Purchase Agreement in Corporate Dispute Over IT Park Acquisition. Court holds that SPA is necessary to effectuate earlier order and does not prejudice rights of respondents.