RAMACHANDER Vs. MOHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can a permanent lease of immovable property be created without a registered instrument, is the short and simple question that requires to be answered in this second appeal.

(2.) The suit was filed against the defendant for a decree for delivery of the vacant possession by eviction of the defendant from the land in Premises No. 15-1-478 situated at old Feelkhana, Hyderabad by demolition of the structures if necessary constructed thereon and for arrears of rent and damages. The plaintiff founded his claim to She suit property on a registered sale deed Ex A-1 dated 20-1-1961 under which the father of the plaintiff late Chandiram purchased the premises 15-1-478 consisting of tin shed and compound wall covering the area of 460 Sq. Yards from one Badrilal. The said Chandiram willed the suit property in favour of the plaintiff through a registered will dated 18-3-1966 Ex. A-4, before his death on 4-4-1966.

(3.) The defendant obtained a lease of the suit premises orally for the first time in 1954 agreeing to pay a rent of Rs. 40/- per month from Hariprasad, the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff. Subsequently, he also constructed a tin shed and 2 rooms in 1954 for running a motor garage with the written permission obtained from Hariprasad, The said Hariprasad sold the suit property to one Sagarmal who in his turn sold it to Badrilal on 13-2-1951 under the registered sale deed Ex. A-3, Badrilal sold the property later, on 20-1-1961 to the plaintiff's father. The plaintiff's father filed the eviction case R. C. No. 241/61 before the Rent Controller, Hyderabad, for eviction of the defendant as he required the suit premises for his own use and occupation. The defendant resisted the application contending mainly that he had not rented any house but he had rented only a piece of land from its original owner late Hariprasad and therefore, the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition for eviction. The Rent Controller ordered eviction on 13-3-1963 and the appeal preferred by the defendant-tenant was allowed by the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, accepting the plea of the defendant that what was rented out to him was only a vacant piece of land and not any house. The revision preferred to this Court against the order of dismissal of eviction petition was also unsuccessful. Thereafter, the plaintiff gave the notice on 28-4-1970 for eviction under section 106 of the TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 and for payment of mesne profits and filed the suit on 20-10-1970.