SAMIR MUKHERJEE versus DAVINDER K. BAJAJ AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 88 · Decided: 18-04-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SAMIR MUKHERJEE 
v. 
DAVINDER K. BAJAJ AND ORS. 
,. 
APRIL 18, 2001 
B 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Tena11cy Laws:· 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882-Sections 106, 107-Lease-Categories 
c of-Execution-Procedure for-Duration. of a lease-Non-indication of-
~ 
Held, in such cases Section 106 lays down a rule of construction prescribing 
the duration of different kinds of/eases by legal fiction-'-Lai1dlord terminating 
the tenancy by 15 days' notice-Plea by tenant that such notice is bad in 
law as lease granted in his favour for manufacturing purpose would be 
D 
deemed to be from year to year requiring·6 months' notice-Tenability·of-
Tenancy created by an oral agreement-Statut01y requiremeht of Section 
107 of a registered instrument for creation of a valid lease ji·om year to ye01; 
not satisfied-Held, there being no registered written lease, rule of 
construction envisaged in Section 106 deeming a lease for manufacturing 
l' 
purpose to be lease .from year to year, would not be applicab/e-15 days' 
E notice to quit issued to tenant, upheld. 
Respondents created tenancy in favour of a11pellant in respect of suit 
llroperty by way of an oral agreement. Subsequently, re~]JOndents filed a suit 
for eviction of appellant and also for recovery of arrears of rent and damages/ 
mesne profits. According to respondents, a1Jpellant was a monthly tenant and 
F therefore 15 days' notice terminating the tenancy, as required under Section ' 
106 of Transfer of Property Act was issued. A1Jpellant admitted the tenancy 
-< 
but pleaded that intention of the parties at the time of its 'creation was to 
grant tenancy permanently because· the lease was granted in his favour for 
manufacturing purpose; the lease would, thus, be deemed to be from year to 
G year and, therefore, notice to quit ought to have been. given for 6 months. 
Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of res11ondents on an application filed 
under Order XII Rule 6 C.P.C. holding that there was clear admission by · 
appellant A11peal filed before the High Court was dismissed Hence the present 
appeal. 
., 
H 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that since the lease was for 
88" 
/ 
'"f 
SAMIR MUKHERJEE v. D.K. BAJAJ 
89 
manufacturing pur11ose, legal presumption al! envisaged in Section 106 of A 
Transfer of Property Act would apply and, therefore, it was a case of a tenancy 
from year to year terminable by 6 months' notice and not by 15 days' notice; 
that though under Section 107 of Transfer of Property Act, a lease from year 
to year could be made only a registered deed, the said section did not control 
the presumption laid down in Section 106 and as such the notice to quit B 
issued to appellant was bad in law. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Section 106 of Tram.fer of Property Act lays down a rule of 
construction, which is to a11ply when the 11arties have not s11ecifically agreed c 
...., 
upon as to whether the lease is yearly or monthly. What this section docs is 
to l>rescribe the duration of the period of different kinds of leases by legal 
fiction-leases for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to 
be lease from year to year and all other leases shall be deemed to be from 
month to month. Existence of a valid lease is a 1>re-requisite to invoke th~ 
rule of construction embodied in Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. D 
Section 107 of Transfer of Prope11y Act 11rescribes the 11rocedure for execution 
of a lease between the parties. Under the said section, a lease of immovabfo 
property from year to year or for any term exceeding one year or reserving 
'i 
yearly rent can be made only by rcgi~1ered instrument. All other leases of 
...,. 
immovable pro11erty can be made either by registered instrument or by oral E 
agreement accompanied by delivery of possession. In the 1irescnt case though 
the appellant has claimed that it was a lease for manufacturing 1mrpose, 
admittedly there was no registered written lease. Therefore, rule of 
construction as envisaged in Section 106 would not be applicable as the 
statutory requirement· of Section· 107 of the Tran sf er of Property Act has not 
been satisfied. Hence the plea of appellant that 15 days' notice terminatin~ F 
• 
his tenancy is bad in law would not be sustainable. (92-D-G; 93-G] 
Jagat Taran Beery v. Sardar Sant Singh, AIR (1980) Delhi 7, relied on~ 
Ram Kumar Das v. Jagdish Chandra Deo, Dhaba/ Dev and Am:, Am. 
(1952) SC 23 = (1952) 3 SCR 26

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