9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (8) TMI 445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000/- per annum. It was pleaded in the application on behalf of the landlord that the rent note was executed on March 25, 1975. This was for one year and the rent fixed was ₹ 5,000/-. According to the tenant, it was pleaded that the rent was ₹ 2,500/-. The signature on the rent note were disputed. 2. After recording evidence the courts below have come to the conclusion that the rent note was executed by the appellant-tenant. The rent note mentions that it is for one year. It appears in evidence that initially ₹ 5,000/- were paid by the appellant and later on ₹ 2,500/- were returned. According to the landlord this was returned as it was agreed that the tenant will remain in the premises only for six months and not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be a tenant holding over and thus he could only be treated as a monthly tenant and even in that view of the matter within the language of Section 13, the tenant will be in arrears atleast for 2 months rent i.e. April and May even if the term in the rent note of payment of yearly rent in advance is also not given effect to and in this view of the matter the order of eviction has been maintained. 5. The main contention advanced on behalf of the appellant is that as the rent note is for one year and it fixed yearly rent and talks of yearly rent in advance it clearly is a lease from year to year and therefore as it is not registered in view of Section 17 of the Registration Act and Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, this could no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lf and in that view of the matter it could not be disputed that the petitioner-appellant is expected to pay rent from month to month and that rent has to be paid in the succeeding month before the end of the month and in this view of the matter it is not disputed that on the day when the appellant tendered the rent in the court in addition to what he had deposited he was in arrears of rent atleast for two months which he did not tender and in this view of the matter the courts below were right in coming to the conclusion that the landlord was entitled to a decree for eviction on that ground. 8. In our opinion, the courts below were right in holding that the appellant tenant was in arrears of rent and on the first day of hearing he did no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
