JAI JAGDAMBA TRADING CO. Vs. ASHARAFI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE rent note in dispute is only a qabuliyat because it does not bear the signatures of the lessor. However, even an qabuliyat it would be a lease deed because the term "Lease", as defined in Section 2(7) of the Registration Act, includes a qabuliyat as well. It would, therefore, be compulsorily registerable if the lease evidenced by the said rent note can be said to be from year to year or for any term exceeding one year. The learned Rent Controller, holding that the lease was neither from year to year nor for a period of more than one year, overruled the objection as to its admissibility. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants have come up in this revision.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners, relying on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Kishore Chand v. Dharam Pal, A.I.R. 1968 Punjab and Haryana 385, has assailed the finding of the Rent Controller that the lease is not for a period of more than one year. In that case, the rent note provided that the lessee shall be entitled to enjoy the leasehold rights as long as he continues to pay the rent. Interpreting this clause it was held that the lease was for a period exceeding one year and the document therefore, compulsorily registerable. Obviously, the said decision has no bearing on the facts of the present case. In the rent note in dispute, it has been specifically stated that the tenancy is from month to month. No doubt, it has been further stated that on 1st April of every year the rent shall be increased by Rs. 150/- till it reaches Rs. 3,600/- per month. Relying on this clause, the learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the tenancy was intended to be for a period of four years. I am unable to subscribe to this view because from the said clause, no intention could be ascribed to the lessor that she intended to lease out the demised premises for a period of four years particularly when it has been specifically stated in two paragraphs that the tenancy is a monthly tenancy. The stipulation regarding the increase of the rent, in these circumstances, would come into play only if the tenancy continues beyond one year and by itself it cannot have the effect of rendering the lease for a period of more than one year. No fault, therefore, can be found with the impugned order and this petition is accordingly dismissed, but without any order as to costs. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on September 14, 1987. Petition dismissed.