NANDA LAL GHOSE Vs. SARAT CHANDRA BANERJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit brought by the plaintiff for the eviction of the defendant from a certain brick- field said to have been leased to him for the period of one year from Kartik 1312 to Aswin 1313 alleging that notice to quit had been served in due course although no notice under law was necessary and also asking for certain arrears of rent for a part of the period in respect of which the tenancy was admitted.

(2.) The first Court gave a decree to the plaintiff for possession as well as for the last quartely instalment of Rs. 40 as arrears of rent with interest. The learned Subordinate Judge upon appeal by the defendant, however, has set aside that decree and dismissed the whole of the plaintiff's suit.

(3.) It is contended before me that the learned Judge has erred in law in deciding the case in that way. It is contended that Section 3 of the Registration Act provides that a lease includes an agreement to lease. Section 4 of the Transfer of Property Act makes Section 107 of the same Act a supplemental provision to the Indian Registration Act of 1877, and as Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that leases for more than one year or from year to year must be by registered deeds and as Section 91 of the Evidence Act excludes evidence in proof of a contract required to be reduced to the form of a document, the defendant was not entitled to prove that there was in his favour an agreement to grant a lease for 5 years.