TULSIRAM RAJARAM TAWLAR Vs. GOVINDA RAMJI PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two lower Courts have dismissed the plaintiff-appellant's suit on the ground that the rent note, dated 11th July 1922, is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. Plaintiff alleged that defendant took a house and kotha from him on rent for six months at Rs. 5 per month and refused to quit at the expiry of that period in spite of service of notice. He therefore claimed to be restored to possession of his house and kotha. The defendant while admitting execution of the rent note pleaded that it was bogus, and subsequently took an extra plea that the rent note was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration.

(2.) THE lower Courts relying on Mt. Nasiban v. Mohammad Sayad AIR 1936 Nag 174 have upheld this last plea. The rent note is said to require registration under Section 107, T.P. Act, and Section 17(1)(d), Registration Act. This depends on whether it amounts to a lease or not. It is executed by the lessee only, and is an agreement to take the houses on rent, i.e. it is a unilateral document a kabuliyat. As the lease is for six months it did not require to be made by a registered instrument under Section 107 but could be by oral agreement ac-companied by delivery of possession. If the kabuliyat is to be looked upon as the lease then it of course would have to be registered and would require to be executed by both lessor and lessee. There is no other document executed by the lessor, and I do not see how one should be forced to look upon this kabuliyat as a lease invalid both for want of registration and for want of signature by both parties. It would be in compliance with the law to regard the lease as made by oral agreement and the acknowledgment of the lease (kabuliyat) to be by this document, which then did not require registration at all. In Birdichand v. Popatlal (1926) 13 AIR Nag 389 at p. 74 such a kabuliyat or rent note was held not to require registration under Section 107, T.P. Act, not being a lease granted by the lessor. This case does not appear to have been brought to the notice of Bose J. in deciding Mt. Nasiban v. Mohammad Syed LPA No. 17 of 1936. In fact it seems to have been assumed in that case without discussion that the rent note did amount to a lease. As the point was not discussed I do not feel pressed by that decision.