1954 (7) TMI 29 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of the unregistered lease deed.
2. Authority of Sayed Ali to issue notice.
3. Obligation to pay enhanced rent.
4. Validity of the notice demanding enhanced rent.
5. Privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant.
6. Entitlement to arrears of rent.
7. Enhanced rent post-lease termination.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of the Unregistered Lease Deed:
The appellant argued that the lease deed dated 1-6-1950 (Ex. P-1) was compulsorily registrable and hence inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. The trial court interpreted that the lease was for one year with a stipulation for further agreement post the first year, thus not requiring mandatory registration under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act (T.P. Act) and Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act. The court held that the document was not a lease-deed but could be used to corroborate an oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession. The court referenced various case laws supporting the admissibility of such unregistered documents for corroboration purposes. Therefore, the first contention by the appellant failed.

2. Authority of Sayed Ali to Issue Notice:
The trial court found that Sayed Ali was duly authorized by the respondent's father, Ram Narayan, to issue the notice dated 9-5-1951. This finding was not contested in the first appellate court or in the High Court.

3. Obligation to Pay Enhanced Rent:
The appellant contested the obligation to pay enhanced rent as demanded by the plaintiff in the notice dated 28-5-1951. The trial court had allowed the claim for enhanced rent, but the first appellate court amended the decree, holding that the plaintiff was entitled to rent only at the rate of Rs. 5 per month until the defendant's ejectment. The High Court upheld this decision, stating that a lessor cannot unilaterally enforce an enhanced rent condition without the lessee's acceptance.

4. Validity of the Notice Demanding Enhanced Rent:
The appellant argued that the notice was invalid as it demanded enhanced rent and did not align with the end of the tenancy month. The court found that the tenancy was according to the Vikram Samwat calendar, and the notice was valid as per that calendar. The contention that the notice should have been according to the Gregorian calendar was dismissed as it was a mixed question of law and fact not raised in the trial court.

5. Privity of Contract Between the Plaintiff and the Defendant:
The appellant argued that there was no privity of contract between the respondent and the appellant as the property was taken on rent from Ram Narayan. The court held that "partition" is included within the term "transfer of property" under Section 109 of the T.P. Act. The court reasoned that when a property is allotted to a member of a joint family in partition, that member becomes the sole lessor. Therefore, the respondent was competent to bring the suit.

6. Entitlement to Arrears of Rent:
The appellant contended that the respondent could not demand rent for the period before the partition date. The court held that since the tenancy was for a fixed term of one year, arrears of rent could be due only at the end of the year. The plaintiff's father had informed the appellant that the plaintiff was entitled to rent from the beginning of the tenancy, and there was no plea that rent was paid to the plaintiff's father. Thus, the plaintiff could claim rent for the entire period.

7. Enhanced Rent Post-Lease Termination:
The plaintiff's cross-objection for enhanced rent post-lease termination was dismissed. The court noted that the demand for enhanced rent in the notice was an offer, not accepted by the lessee, and thus could not be enforced unilaterally. The trial court did not justify the necessity of damages, and the first appellate court exercised its discretion in not awarding damages. The High Court found no grounds to interfere with this discretion.

Conclusion:
Both the appeal and the cross-objection were dismissed. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs proportionate to their success in the High Court.