9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a lease can be made by an unregistered instrument when such deed is compulsorily registerable. 2. Whether the appellant can claim protection as a tenant under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (Rent Act). 3. Whether the suit building is held by the appellant under a lease or not. Summary: Issue 1: Unregistered Lease Instrument The primary issue was whether a lease could be made by an unregistered instrument when such deed is compulsorily registerable. The lease-deed in question was intended to be operative for five years but was unregistered. The court noted three statutory inhibitions against such an unregistered lease: 1. Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TP Act): A lease of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, can be made only by a registered instrument. 2. Section 17(1) of the Registration Act, 1908: Leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, must be registered. 3. Section 49 of the Registration Act: An unregistered document required to be registered cannot affect any immovable property, confer any power to adopt, or be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property. The court concluded that the unregistered lease-deed could not create a lease due to these statutory inhibitions. Issue 2: Protection Under the Rent Act The appellant claimed protection under the Rent Act, arguing that he was a tenant despite the unregistered lease-deed. The court examined the definitions of "tenant" and "landlord" u/s 2(6) of the Rent Act and concluded that for a building to be covered by the Rent Act, there must be a lease under law. Since the unregistered lease-deed could not create a lease, the court had to determine if a lease existed otherwise. Issue 3: Existence of a Lease The court considered whether the appellant was a lessee of the building despite the unregistered lease-deed. U/s 105 of the TP Act, a lease is a transfer of a right to enjoy property in consideration of a price paid or promised. Such a transfer can be made expressly or by implication. The court noted that the appellant was inducted into possession of the building by the owner and was paying monthly rent, indicating a jural relationship of lessor and lessee. The court held that the mere existence of an unregistered instrument did not prevent the court from determining if a lease existed otherwise. The appellant's possession and payment of rent created a lease u/s 107 of the TP Act, falling within the second paragraph, which allows leases to be made by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession. The court concluded that the appellant occupied the building as a tenant, paid rent, and continued as such, making him a statutory tenant under the Rent Act. Therefore, the appellant could not be evicted except in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Act. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, and dismissed the suit filed by the respondent. The respondent's remedy lies in moving an application before the Rent Control Court under the provisions of the Rent Act.
|
