BANARSILAL Vs. SHRI BHAGWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by the defendant in a suit for the arrears of rent and ejectment. Both the parties are residents of Didwana and the property relating to the suit, which is a Nohra is also situated in the same town.

(2.) THE plaintiff respondent Shri Bhagwan's case in the trial court was that the said nohra was leased out by his father Ram Narayan to the appellant Banarsilal on First Ashadh Vadi 1 Svt. 2007 (corresponding to 1st June 1950) for one year on a rent of Rs. 60/- THE appellant executed a rent-note in favour of Ram Narayan Ram Bilas which was a firm name of respondent's father. THEreafter the said property came to the exclusive share of the respondent on account of a partition in their family. THE respondents father gave a notice to the appellant on 9th May 1951 informing him that the nohra had gone to the share to the respondent. It was further averred by the respondent that since he needed that property for his own personal use, he gave a notice to the appellant on 28th May, 1951 that he should give vacant possession of the property on First Ashadh Vadi 1, Svt. 2008 that on his failure to vacate the property the respondent would take legal action against him and he will have to pay an enhanced rate of Rs. 10/- p. m. till the date of his eviction. It was stated that the appellant gave no reply to that notice. It was therefore prayed that a decree of Rs. 102/8 for the arrears of rent (Rs. 60/-being for the first year and Rs. 42/8 the remaining period up) to the date of the suit) and ejectment be given against the appellant.

(3.) IT may be pointed out that in another case to Taj Din vs. Abdul Rahim (5) a Division Bench of the same High Courts including Bhide J. himself, and held an unregistered rent deed for less than a year admissible in evidence In that case it was held following the case of Ramkrishna Jha vs. Jainandan Jha (5) that sec. 107 of the Transfer of Property Act was not governed by the definition of the term "lessee" in the Registration Act but by the definition in sec. 105 of the Transfer of Property Act. IT was therefore observed as follows: - "it seems to my mind thus clear that the rent deed in question in the present case cannot be considered to be a lease within the meaning of sec. 107, T. P. Act. If it is not a 'lease' under that section, it would not, of course, as a rent-deed for less than a year, require registration under the Registration Act and this was not disputed before us. IT would consequently be admissible in evidence though unregistered. The rent-deed in that case recited that the house had been already taken on rent from the plaintiff. IT was held that: - "this is consistent with the existence of an oral lease prior to the execution of the rent-deed. The possession of the house was already with the defendant. Consequently; there seems to have been in this case an oral lease "accompanied by posses sion and the deed of rent can be therefore used as a corroborative piece of evidence to support the terms of the lease". This case was referred with approval by a Full Bench of the same High Court in the case of Mohanlal vs. Ganga Singh (7 ).