SITARAM Vs. SHANKARLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Section 17 (1) (d) of the Indian Registration Act makes registration compulsory in case of "leases immoveable property for year to year or any term exceeding one year and reserving a yearly rent". Indeed Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act itself envisages the said requirement by requiring the types of leases mentioned in Section 17 (1) (d) to be made "only by registered instrument".

(2.) HOWEVER , the short question in this case is whether the document which was held to be inadmissible in evidence by the trial Court can at all be said to be a "lease" within the meaning of Sections 105 and 107 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is explicitely contemplated in Section 107 that a lease of an immoveable property shall be executed by both lessor and lessee and unless the instrument is of such a nature evidently, accordingly to me, it cannot be called a "lease" to fulfill the requirement of Sec. 17 (1) (d) of the Registration Act. In the instant case, the admitted position is that instrument in question was a "Rent -Note" which was executed by the tenant or the lessee. It was not executed only by both lessor and the lessee to fit in the requirement of "lease" contemplated under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act. Unfortunately, still the Court below took the view that the instrument in question, namely, the Rent Note aforesaid could not be admitted in evidence. I have no hesitation at all to say that the decision is pulpably and patently wrong.