S HASSAN SAIT Vs. K P MIRCHANDANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of S. C. S. no. 252 of 1948-49 before the District Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 150 being the rent due for the month of January 1949 on the foot of a written agreement which was filed into Court. The defendant raised a plea that the suit-claim was not enforceable as the written lease was not registered. He also pleaded discharge of the suit claim. When the case came up for evidence the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint by adding a plea that the suit must be deemed to have been based on an oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession. The amendment was also refused on the ground that the suit for rent cannot be converted into one for use and occupation. The trial Court applying Section 107, T. P. Act, held that the claim on the foot of an unregistered deed is not sustainable. This revision petition is preferred against that order.

(2.) The learned trial Judge has misdirected himself in applying Section 107, T. P. Act, in the circumstances of the case. The suit agreement runs thus:

(3.) Whether such unilateral agreements bind all the persons coming under the purview of the chapter on lease of immovable property and should be deemed a lease as defined in Section 105, T. P. Act, has been the subject-matter of a number of decisions in India, There was undoubtedly conflict of opinion before the Amending Act of 1929. But subsequent to the amendment the majority view has been that such agreements do not come under or are governed by Section 105, T. P. Act. The interpretation of a similar document came before this Court for consideration is the year 1926 (33 Mys. C. C. R. 26) where a suit was based on a document styled as 'kayam geni karar' for recovery of paddy or its value. It was held following Ahadi Begam v. Asa Ram, 2 ALL. 162, that the document was not a deed of lease of immovable property as defined in Section 105, T. P. Act, there being no transferor nor a transfer of a right to enjoy the property. The Allahabad High Court has been consistent in its opinion from the very beginning and in fact the Amendment Act of 1929 was in consonance with the view that was taken by the Allahabad High Court which was followed in Mysore. In a very recent case, the Allahabad High Court has affirmed its view in Maqbool Ahmad v. Debi A. I. R. (36) 1949 ALL. 455, and the head-note runs as follows :