BANWARILAL SHARMA Vs. RAM SWAROOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff, who claims to be the owner of the premises consisting of a room and a tin shed situated in 'c' Scheme in the city of Jaipur, alleged that he had let out the premises to the defendant on April 1, 1957, on a monthly rent of Rs. 4/-and a rent-deed was executed in respect of this tenancy by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on April 1, 1957. As the defendant did not make payment of the rent from August 1, 1962, the plaintiff filed a suit on August 27, 1965, in the Court of Judge, Small Causes, Jaipur City, for the recovery of Rs. 144/- as arrears of rent @ Rs. 4/-per month and Rs. 9/- as house tax, in all for Rs. 153/ -.

(2.) THE defendant resisted the suit and denied the execution of the alleged rent deed by him in favour of the plaintiff and also took the defence that the alleged rent-deed was an unregistered document and as such was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. THE Judge, Small Causes, Jaipur City, by his order dated March 3, 1966 held that the alleged rent-note was a simple 'kirayanama' and was admissible in evidence. THEreafter by his judgment dated April 13, 1968, the learned Judge held that the execution of the rent-deed Ex. 1 by the defendant was proved and holding that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was established from the aforesaid document and that the defendant was the plaintiff's tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 4/-, a decree for Rs. 144/- with costs, in respect of arrears of rent was passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. It was further decided that as no agreement was proved between the parties in respect of the payment of house tax, the suit for the recovery of house tax was not maintainable and as such the claim for the recovery of house-tax was disallowed.

(3.) NOW sec. 107 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that a lease of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent, can be made only by a registered instrument and further that all other leases of immovable property may be made either by a registered instrument or by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession. Thus, leases coming within the ambit of second paragraph of sec. 107, includes all other leases which are for a period of one year or less and in which the rent agreed upon is not yearly Such leases, if they are reduced to writing, must be effected by a registered document. An unregistered document of lease, in cases where the lease is required to be registered, conveys no title and creates no rights in the lessee and cannot be used in evidence to prove the transaction of lease or any terms thereof. In the present case as we have observed above, the document Ex. 1 fulfills all the necessary requirements of a lease, as it purports to have been executed both by the lessor and the lessee and contains all the essential terms and conditions of lease and is for a period of 11 months, reserving monthly rent. As such, it could have been effected only by a registered instrument, as required by the second paragraph of sec. 107 of the Transfer of Property Act. As the document Ex. 1 is admittedly not registered, it was clearly inadmissible in evidence and no rights could have flown from such an unregistered document nor it could have been used in the present case for the purpose of proving the relationship of landlord and tenant. In view of sec. 4 of the Transfer of Property Act, the provisions of sec. 107 thereof are to be read as supplemental to those of the Registration Act. The effect of these provisions read together, therefore, is to exclude all unregistered leases, which have been reduced to writing, from evidence.