KISHORE CHAND Vs. DHARAM PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question for considers tion in this reference by my learned brother, mahajan, J. , is whether the rent-note, Ex. P-1, of June 11, 1961, executed by kishore Chand, appellant, in favour of Dharam Pal, respondent, taking on lease a part of a house at Amrit-sar, creates a lease 'for any term exceeding one year' within the meaning and scope of Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the indian Registration Act, 1908 (Act 16 of 1908)?

(2.) THE appellant took on lease the demised premises at a rental of Rs. 10 per men-sam, executing the rent-note, which, therefore, is a written document as executed by him. This is, for the present purpose, the material portion of the rent-note:

(3.) A lease, according to Section 105 of Act 4 of 1882, is a transfer for consideration of a right to enjoy the demised property. Obviously, the right transferred in such a property is transferred by the lessor in favour of the lessee. As in any other transfer, so in this type of transfer, the transferor or the lessor lays his conditions of limitation, if any, on the extent of the right transferred. The right vesting in the lessee can thus only be limited at the time of the transfer, for the matter of the transfer, by him, and equally obviously enough not by the transferee or the lessee. The Utter can, of course, accept any conditions subject to which he takes the transfer, but the extent of the right transferred is determined by the transfer in that respect made by the lessor, and not by the lessee. On this consideration, if the duration of a lease is to be determined from the contents and context of a rent-note or a lease deed, which is otherwise not clear or admits of an argument on the basis of tha intention of the parties, then what has to be seen is what was the right and to what extent that right has been transferred by the lessor to the lessee. In the present case, on tha conditions and terms as reproduced above, it is abundantly clear that the respondent, as lessor, transferred the lease rights in the demised premises to the appellant, as lessee, to be enjoyed by the latter for as long a time as he continued to pay the rent. This means that so long as the appellant paid rent to the respondent, the latter had no right to eject the former from the demised premises. In other words, the respondent transferred to the appellant lease rights in the demised premises indefinitely subject only to the latter continuing to pay the rent. This means that the lease was Tor a term exceeding one year. On this conclusion it required registration in view of Section 17 (1) (d) of Act 16 of 1908.