Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Anwar Noormohammed Pirani, filed a suit for possession and recovery of rent against the respondent, Santosh Gajanan Naskulwar, in respect of a shop admeasuring 395 sq. ft. The petitioner claimed that the shop was given on rent to the respondent for 11 months from 11/06/2008 to 10/05/2009 under a written agreement executed on 02/09/2008 and attested before a Notary on 19/09/2008. The agreed rent was Rs. 3900 per month. The petitioner alleged that the respondent failed to pay rent from November 2008, and after the expiry of the lease period, the respondent continued in possession illegally. A notice was issued on 27/07/2009, and upon no reply, the suit was filed on 23/09/2009. The respondent filed a written statement denying the execution of the agreement and claimed that he was in possession of two separate shop blocks (200 sq. ft. and 195 sq. ft.) since January 2006 and 2008 respectively, with a deposit of Rs. 50,000. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner, granting possession and recovery of arrears of rent. The respondent appealed to the Additional Sessions Court, Kelapur, which allowed the appeal and set aside the decree on the ground that the lease deed was not registered as required under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and therefore the suit was not maintainable. The petitioner challenged this appellate order in the High Court. The High Court examined the provisions of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, which states that a lease of immovable property for a term less than one year can be created by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession. The court noted that the lease in question was for 11 months, i.e., less than one year, and therefore registration was not mandatory. The unregistered lease deed was admissible in evidence for collateral purposes, such as proving the fact of tenancy and the terms of rent. The High Court held that the appellate court had erred in reversing the trial court's decree solely on the ground of non-registration. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the appellate court's order, and restored the trial court's decree for possession and recovery of rent.
Headnote
A) Transfer of Property Act - Lease - Registration - Section 107 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Lease for a term less than one year can be created by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession; registration is not mandatory - The court held that the lease deed for 11 months, though unregistered, was admissible in evidence for collateral purposes and the trial court had rightly decreed possession in favour of the landlord (Paras 7-10). B) Evidence Act - Admissibility of Unregistered Document - Section 49 of Registration Act, 1908 read with Section 17(1)(d) - An unregistered lease deed for a term less than one year is admissible to prove the fact of tenancy and its terms as collateral transaction - The appellate court erred in holding that the document was inadmissible for want of registration (Paras 8-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a lease agreement for a period of 11 months requires compulsory registration under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and whether the unregistered lease deed is admissible in evidence for proving the terms of tenancy.
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 23/02/2018 passed by Additional Sessions Court, Kelapur set aside. Decree of possession and recovery of rent passed by trial court restored.
Law Points
- Lease of immovable property for less than one year can be created by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession
- Section 107 of Transfer of Property Act
- 1882 does not mandate registration for such leases
- Unregistered lease deed for 11 months is admissible in evidence for collateral purposes
- Appellate court erred in reversing trial court's decree on ground of non-registration
