RAM KUMAR DAS versus JAGADISH CHANDRA DEB DHABAL DEB AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1952] 1 S.C.R. 269 · Decided: 26-11-1951 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
269 
Kulasekara's claim was rightly negatived in the courts 
below arrd that of Rajaya was rightly decreed. 
In the result all these appeals fail and are dismissed 
with costs. 
Appeals dismissed. 
Agent for the appellant in Ci.vii Appeals Nos. 28 & 
29 of 1949, respondent No. 1 in Civil Appeals Nos. 
30, 32 & 33 of 1949 and respondent No. 2 in Civil Ap-
peal No. 31 of 1949 and for Respondent 
No. 3 in 
Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1949 : M. S. K. Sastri. 
Agent for the appellant in Civil Appeals Nos. 31 to 
33 of 1949, respondent No. 1 in Civil Appeals Nos. 
28, 29 of 1949 and respondent No. 2 in Civil Appeal 
No. 30 of 1949 : M. S. K. Aiyangar. 
Agent for the appellant in Civil Appeals Nos. 30, 89, 
and 90 of 1949, respondent No. 1 in Civil Appeal No. 
31 of 
1949 and respondent No. 2 in Civil Appeals 
Nos. 
28, 29, 32 & 33 of 1949: S. Subrahmanyam. 
Agent for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in Civil Ap-
peals Nos. 89 and 90 of 1949: V. P. K. Natr!biyar. 
RAM KUMAR DAS 
ti, 
JAGADISH CHANDRA DEB DHABAL DEB 
AND ANOTHER. 
[PATANJALI SAsTRI C. J., MuKHERJEA, DAs 
and VMAN BosE JJ.] 
Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), ss. 106, 107-Duration of 
lease-Presumption-Kabuliyat for 10 
years-Payment of annual 
rent for two years only-Kabuliyat inoperative-Nature of posses-
sion after the two years-Whether adverse, as tenant from year to 
year, or as monthly tenant-Applicability of s. 106 to implied tcnan· 
cies-Prcsumption from payment of annual rent. 
The rule of construction embodied in s. 106 of the Transfer 
of Property Act applies not only to express leases 
of 
uncertain 
duration but also to leases implied by law which may be inferred 
from possession and acceptance of rent and other circumstances, 
1951 
Chinnathayi 
alias 
Veeralakshmi 
v. 
Kulasekara 
Pandiya Naicker 
and Another. 
1951 
Nov. 26 
270 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
f1952] 
1951 
The contract to the contrary contemplated by the said 5ection 
need not be an express contract ; it 1nay be implied, but it should 
Ram Kumar Das be a valid contract. 
If the contract is invalid the 
section 
will 
T.. 
regulate the duration of the lease. 
fagdish Chandra 
\.Vhen the rent reserved is an annual rent, a preiumption 
Deb Dhabal Deb would arise that the tenancy was an annual tenancy unless there 
and Another. 
is something to rebut this presumption. But under s. 107 of 
the 
Transfer of Property Act a tenancy from year to year or 
reserv-
ing an yearly rent can be made only by a registered instrument. 
The defendant executed a registered bbuliyat to the 
Receiver 
who was n1anaging an estate pending a suit, 
purporting to 
take 
a plot of land on lease for a period of ten years at a rental of 
Rs. 46 per annum and paid the first year'.i rent of Rs. 46 on the 
8th March, 1925, and the next year's rent on the 16th March, 
1926. 
No further rent was paid by the defendant to the Receiver 
or to the 
propri~tor after that date. 
The proprietor, 
treating 
the defendant as a monthly tenai;it served notice to quit on him 
on the 18th July, 1942, asking the latter to vacate on the 7th 
August, 1942, and instituted a suit for ajectment in July, 1943. 
The kabuliyat was found to be inoperative in law and the. 
defendant contended that the payment and acceptance of annual 
'rent in 1925 and 1926 did not create a monthly tenancy but two 
tenancies for one year each for two successive years, that 
the 
relation of landlord and tenant came to an end on the exipration 
of th'C second annual lease, and, as there was no holding over, 
the suit was t.ime-barred : 
Held (i) that from the facts a tenancy could be presumed to 
have come into existence from 1924 ; (ii) as the 
purpose of 
the 
tenancy was for building structures on the land, under sec. 106 
()f the Transfer of Property Act the tenancy must be presumed 
to be one from month to month in the absence of a contract to 
the contrary ; (iii) a contract that the tenancy was for one 
year 
certain could not be inferred in the present case from the fact 
that an a'nnual rent was paid in 1925 and 1926, inasmuch as the 
kabuliyat, though inoperative in law, showed that the 
parties 
never intended to create a lease for one year; {iv) on the facts 
of the case it was quite proper to hold that the tenancy was one 
from month to month since its inception in 1924 and the suit 
was not time~barred. 
Debendra Nath v. Shyama Prasanna (11 C.W.N. 1124) and 
Sheikh Akloo v. Emaman (I.L.R. 44 Cal. 403) approved. 
Aziz Ah

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.