ANTHONY versus KC ITTOOP AND SONS AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 645 · Decided: 21-07-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

ANTHONY 
A 
v. 
KC ITTOOP AND SONS AND ORS. 
JULY 21, 2000 
[K.T. THOMAS, D.P. MOHAPATRA AND R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.] 
B 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
Kera/a Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965-Sections 2(6), C 
(3) and (/)-Relationship of-landlord-Tenant-On the face of an 
unregistered lease deed-Person inducted into possession of the building by 
the owner-Such person paying monthly rent-Held, that despite an 
unregistered lease deed was executed between the parties, there was a 
landlord tenant relationship between them-Further, after commencement of 
Kera/a Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, tenant became a statutory D 
tenant and could be evicted only on an application moved before the Rent 
Control Court-Transfer of Property Act, 1882 sections 107 and 105-
Registration Act, 1908 sections 17(/) and 49. 
Words and Phrases: 
E 
"Let"-Meaning of 
Appellant was inducted in possession of the building. It was as per an 
unregistered lease-deed which was for a period of five years. Appellant paid 
rent to the landlord and later to his successors-in-interest, the respondents. F 
Thereafter, the respondents filed suit for eviction against the appellant. The 
trial court decreed the suit. Iii the first appeal it was held that inspite of non-
registration of the lease-deed there was a valid tenancy and the appellant 
cannot be evicted. This order was set aside in the second appeal ant the first 
appeal was remanded back. After remand the district judge held that appellant 
is the tenant as defined in the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act G 
and the respondents are not entitled to a decree. The proper remedy would be 
to apply before the Rent Control Court. On the second appeal, High Court 
passed an eviction decree in favour of the respondents. Hence, this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
645 
H 
646 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000) SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1. An unregistered lease-deed cannot create a lease. But as 
the appellant occupied the building as the tenant and paid rent to the landlord 
and continued as such, independent of such void lease-deed, landlord-tenant 
relationship existed. Hence, with the coming into force of Kerala Building 
(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, the appellant became a statutory tenant 
B 
whose eviction can be considered only when an application is moved before 
the Rent Control Court. 1653-H; 654-AI 
2.1. A lease-deed cannot create a lease on account of statutory inhibitions 
under section 107 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and sections 17(1) and 
49 of the Registration Act, 1908. But this does not exhaust the scope of the 
c 
c issue whether appellant is a lessee of the building. Section 107 of the Act 
states that lease is a transfer of a right to enjoy the property and such transfer 
can be made expressly or by implication. The mere fact that an unregistered 
instrument came into existence would not stand in the way of the court to 
determine whether there was in fact a lease otherwise than through such deed. 
(651-D-HI 
D 
Smt. Shantabai v. State of Bombay, AIR (1958) SC 532; Satish Chand 
Makhan v. Goverdhan Das Byas, (198411 SCC 369 and Bajaj Auto Ltd v. 
Behari Lal Kohli, AIR (1989) SC 1806, relied on. 
2.2. As the appellant was inducted into the possession of the building 
E by the owner and paying monthly rent or had agreed to pay rent in respect of 
the building, the legal character of appellant's possession bas to be attributed 
to a jural relationship between the parties. Therefore, such a jural relationship 
is of lessor and lessee falling within the purview of section 107 of the Act. 
1652-A-BI 
F 
2.3. Non-registration of the document bad caused only two consequences. 
One is that no lease exceeding one year was created. Second is that the 
instrument became useless· so far as creation of the lease is concerned. 
Nonetheless the presumption that a lease not exceeding one year stood created 
by conduct of parties remains un-rebutted.1652-G] 
G 
HS Rikhy v. New Delhi Municipal Corporation, (19621 3 SCR 604, 
distinguished. 
Technicians Studio Pvt. Ltd v. Lila Ghosh, 119771 4 SCC 324 and 
Biswabani Pvt. Ltd v. Santosh Kumar Dutta, (198011 SCR 650, relied on. 
H 
3.1. The word "tenant" is defined in section 2(6) of the Kerala Building 
.. 
-
ANTHONY v. KC ITTOOP AND SONS [THOMAS, J.] 
647 
(Lease and Rent Control) Act as "any person by whom or on whose account A 
rent is payable for building ... ". Landlord is defined as including the person 
who is
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.