SALLOMAL Vs. NAINA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal preferred by the defendant against whom the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent has been decreed raises a question of law on which there are precedential authorities of our High Court which are conflicting.

(2.) IT appears that on 13th November 1962 a document of lease was executed mutually by the parties creating a lease for manufacture of soap for a period of eleven months. The rent under that lease was payable from month to month. The respondent had given one month's notice for determining the lease under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The appellant claimed that this notice was invalid as the lease was compulsorily registrable but it was not registered. IT was, therefore, an invalid lease. Thirty days notice determining the lease was invalid as it was for manufacturing purpose and requires six month's notice as laid down under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The decision of the lower appellate court having gone against the appellant he has preferred this appeal.

(3.) FROM the view taken in the aforementioned Supreme Court case it would appear that if the document is a unregistered document it would operate on the presumption raised under law. Under Section 106 T. P. Act, it being a lease for manufacturing purpose, it would require six months' notice for determination of the tenancy. It does not appear that this case was brought to the notice of Gurtu, J. when he decided the reported Lala Fateh Chand's case in 1956 A.L.J, as it does not find any reference in that judgment.