MAHARAJSINGH Vs. PREM NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original parties to the suit giving rise to this second appeal were Shrilal, the plaintiffs and Ma-harajsingh and Ramcharan, the defendants. All of them expired at one stage or the other of this litigation. Claiming to be the owner- landlord of the accommodation in question which is situated in Ward No. 3 (Aswar) of village Jait-pur Tehsil Lahar, District Bhind, Shrilal sought eviction of Maharajsingh and Ramcharan therefrom. They are real brothers. The plaintiffs case was that in 1950 or so, he had orally inducted the defendants on the suit premises as monthly tenants at Rs. 2/-per month as rent. Later on. there was some dispute about rent which was resolved by a fresh eon-tract of tenancy under Ex. p. 1 rent note dated 20-12-1963, with the result that the defendants became his monthly tenants at Rs. 3/- per month as rent from that date on an express condition that they shall vacate the premises on demand. On 20-121967, he made a demand on them to vacate the accommodation which they not merely declined to do but also disclaimed his title thereto asserting that they are the real owners thereof. He also claimed arrears of rent. The defendants in a joint written statement, denied the tenancy as well as its renewal branding Ex. p. 1 rent note as a piece of forgery and claiming the premises as their ancestral property of which they have been enjoying possession as of right since 1933. The trial Court, however, substantially upheld the plaintiff's case and decreed eviction of the defendants holding that the tenancy being at will, no notice was necessary to put an end to it. The only result of the appeal filed by the defendants was that while confirming the decree, the appellate Court held that Ex. p. 1 rent note is admissible in evidence that it discloses a monthly tenancy, and that as per the contract between the parties, a mere demand for possession was legally suffici-ent to determine the tenancy, It, however, went mainfestly wrong in holding further that the tenancy stood determined by forfeiture under Section 111 (g) of the Transfer of Property Act as well. For. although the disclaimer was there alright and of the origin before the filing of the suit, the plaintiff did neither allege nor prove that he had given any notice in writing to the defendants of his intention to determine the lease on that score.

(2.) In this appeal by the legal representative of the defendants it is again being reiterated that the finding about the relationship of landlord and tenants between the plaintiffs and the defendants respectively is vitiated for want of any legal evidence to support it. To buttress the argument it is submitted that the rent note fix. p. 1 was not admissible in evidence and that even its execution has not been proved let alone by both the defendants. Bereft of merits as it is, the argument must fail.

(3.) Taking the first limb first it is abundantly clear from the tenor of Ex. p. 1 'that it purports to create a monthly tenancy at Rs. 3/- per month as rent making the same determinable on a mere demand for possession. It is no doubt unregistered that not being one covered by Section 17 (1) (d) of the Indian Registration Act, its registration was not compulsory. It does not come within the mischief of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act either. Nor would it be invalid for want of its execution by the lessor (Mt. Radhahai v. N. J. Nayadu, AIR 1951 Nag 285). There is, therefore, no question of Ex. p. 1 being hit by Section 49 of the just mentioned Act.