SHYAM LAL versus DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA GARIB DASS

Citation: [2016] 5 S.C.R. 893 · Decided: 05-07-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 5 S.C.R. 893 
SHYAM LAL 
v. 
DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA GARIB DASS 
(Civil Appeal No. 4245 of2012) 
. JULYOS,2016 
[RANJAN GOGOi, ARUN MISHRA AND PRAFULLA C. 
PANT, JJ.] 
Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953 - ss. 9 and 14A 
rlw. ss. 39 and 40 of Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 - Agricultural 
tenancy/lease - For fixed term - Under the Act - Availability of 
protection under the 1953 Act for eviction/ejectment of the tenant/ 
lessee - After expiry of the term of tenancy/lease - Lease agreement 
(unregistered) for a fixed term - Tenant/lessee remained in possession 
of the land even after the term of tenancy - Tenant filed suit for 
injunction restraining the landlord from ousting him from the 
property - Cross-objection of land-lord seeking mandatory 
injunction for vacation from the property on the ground that the 
tenant had ceased to be a tenant on expiry of period of lease -
Order of eviction of tenant - Affirmed by High Court - On appeal, 
Division Bench of Supreme Court differed with the view in *Sukhdev 
Singh case whereby it was held that a tenant under the 1953 Act 
ceases to be one, on expiry of the fixed term tenancy under the 
contract, whereafter he is not entitled to statutory protection from 
eviction - Hence matter referred to Larger Bench - Held: As the 
lease agreement was unregistered, the same would not be admissible 
in evidence by virtue of s. 107 of Transfer of Property Act and ss. 
17 and 49 of Registration Act - Hence, cannot be looked into for 
determination of duration of the lease - The lease has to be deemed 
to be a lease from year to year - The tenant/lessee remained in 
possession of the land beyond the legally presumptive period, with 
the implied consent of the land-lord - Thus, the tenant acquired the 
status of 'tenant holding over ' or a 'tenant at will' - Therefore, the 
tenant whose lease has expired would not be tenant within purview 
of 1953 Act rlw relevant provisions of 1887 Act - But continuation 
of possession after expiry of lease duration with the consent of the 
land-lord would confer the status of 'tenant' to the occupant on the 
893 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G. 
H 
894 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 5 S.C.R. 
A 
principle of holding over in view of s. 116 of Transfer of property 
Act - Therefore, such tenant would be entitled to protection under 
1953 Act - Transfer of Property Act,1882 - s. 106, 107 and 116 -
Registration Act, 1908 - ss. 17 and 49. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is not to be 
applicable to the State of Punjab (including the present State of 
Haryana which was included in the erstwhile State of Punjab). 
However, by a Gazette Notification dated 26'h March, 1955 
(No.1605-R(CH)-55/589) published in the Punjab Govt. Gazette 
dated 1" April, 1955 the provisions of Sections 54, 107 and 123 
of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 were extended to the entire 
State of Pun.jab with effect from 1" April, 1955. Sections 54, 107 
and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 were further applied 
to the PEPSU area of that State with effect from 15'h May, 1957 
by Notification dated 15'h May, 1957 published in the Pun.jab 
Government Gazette (Extraordinary). [Paras 13 and 14) [902-E-
F; 903-A-B] 
2. Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act requires 
annual leases of immovable property to be made by a registered 
instrument. Though Section 117 of the Transfer of Property Act, 
1882 makes the provisions of Chapter V, which includes Section 
107, inapplicable to agricultural leases, Section 117 has not been 
made applicable to the State of Punjab by the notifications referred 
to above. Therefore, the provisions of Section 107 of the Transfer 
of Property Act, 1882 would apply with full force and vigor to all 
leases of immovable property including agricultural leases in the 
State of Punjab (including Haryana). [Para 15) [903-E-G] 
3. In the present case the appellant tenant remained in 
possession of the land for the fixed term envisaged in the lease 
agreement i.e. from 29'h May, 1996 to 28'h May, 2005 and even 
thereafter. As the lease in question was not a registered 
instrument and as Section 117 of the Transfer of Property Act 
has no application to the State ofHaryana, in view of the provisions 
of Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act read with Section 
107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 the terms of the lease 
deed would not be admissible in evidence and, therefore, cannot 
be 

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