RAMANNA Vs. H SRANGASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against the judgment in S. C. No. 86 of 47-48 on the file of the Munsiff of Hassan, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for rent as prayed for.

(2.) According to the allegations in the plaint, the plaintiff leased the property to the defendant as stated in what was termed as rent chit. The defendant denied his having executed the rent chit and his being a tenant. He did not claim any title of his own in the property. The lower Court believed that the rent chit was executed by the defendant. The main contention urged in revision against the decision of the lower Court is that the suit based on unregistered document referred to as the rent chit is not maintainable.

(3.) According to Section 105, T. P. Act, a lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made for a certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or promised, or of money, a share of crops, service or any other thing of value, to be rendered, periodically or on specified occasions, to the transferor by the transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms. It will be noticed that the document must purport to transfer a right to enjoy. The transfer can only be made by the landlord. This must be accepted by the tenant. The document referred to as the rent chit purports to be executed by the petitioner, who is the tenant. It cannot, therefore, be a lease deed at all and no question of registration arises. In the decision reported in Mt. Nasiban v. Mahomed Syed, A. I. R. (23) 1936 Nag. 174 : (164 I. C. 557), which refers to a rent note purporting to grant lease of property for 11 months which is cot registered, it is observed that such a note does not operate as a lease and is inadmissible in evidence to prove the period for which the lease is granted and the rent due under it. It will be noticed that the case is dealing with a document which according to that decision purports to grant lease of property for 11 months. In this cage, the document has not been executed by the landlord and it does not purport to transfer any interest in the property. It may be stated here though that decision was arrived at on the basis that the document purported to be a lease deed, the decision has not been followed in a later decision of the same High Court reported in Tulsiram v. Govinda, 189 I.C. 753 ; (A.I.R. (27) 1940 Nag. 143), There has also been an earlier decision of the same Court holding a different view, Vide Birdichand v. Popat Lal, A. I. R. (13) 1926 Nag. 389 : (24 N.L.R. 68), It would be useful to refer to the following observations in Tulsiram v. Govinda, 189 I.C. 753 : (A.I.R. (27) 1940 Nag. 143) :