SANJIB CHANDRA SANYAL Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR LAHIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In July 1925 certain proprietors of a business called the "Minerva Library" were in occupation of a shop room at 54, College Street, Calcutta, and by them the plaintiff was put in possession on his own behalf of the shop and business. It appears that these parties were holding under an unregistered instrument of tenancy which purported to demise the premises for five years ending in December 1916. However, the plaintiff and his predecessors occupied the premises for the fall, period of five years, and at the expiry of this period, defendants Nos. 6 to 9, whom I will call the Mondal defendants, were the landlords. The plaintiff entered into negotiations with them for a farther term and these negotiations resulted in a written instrument, dated 15 January 1917. This the plaintiff tenders in evidence, but it is objected to by Counsel for defendants Nos. 1 to 5 (whom I will call the Lahiri defendants) on the ground that it comes within Section 17 of the Registration Act (XVI of 1903) and is hit by Section 49. Having regard to the issues in the case and the state of the decisions, it seemed to me advisable to reserve the question whether the document is admissible in evidence until the whole case was before me.

(2.) Apart from the document, there is not on the evidence proof of the terms of the intended tenancy. It is not open to ma, apart from the document, to find any prior or independent oral agreement in January 1917. In my opinion, what took place between the plaintiff and the Mondal defendants at that time, was merely treaty or negotiation for a further tenancy, the terms of which were intended to be reduced into writing and were concluded only in that form. The document tendered purports to be in form a memorandum of agreement but in its operative clauses it uses the language of a present demise. From its terms and from the admitted circumstances, I think it dear that it was intended to operate as a present demise to the plaintiff for five years from 1 January 1917 and I must hold it to be a lease within the meaning of Clause (d) of Section 17 of the Registration Act.

(3.) One of its provisions is this : And be it known hereby that if the lessors transfer this house by sale before this term of five years then a notice will have to be given to me six months beforehand and the salami money which is paid for a period of five years will have to be returned to me proportionately taking into consideration the number of months before the expiry of which the house is sold," Considerable time and space might be occupied in setting out the various possible meanings of this clause, hut I do not think it can be contended nor was it contended before me that it prevents the document from being a "lease" for a term exceeding one year. It is, therefore, within Section 49 of the Act.