SIRI CHAND (DECEASED) THR. LRS. versus SURINDER SINGH

Citation: [2020] 5 S.C.R. 265 · Decided: 17-06-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
265
SIRI CHAND (DECEASED) THR. LRS.
v.
SURINDER SINGH
(Civil Appeal No. 2617 of 2020)
JUNE 17, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, M.R. SHAH AND
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 – s. 13 –
Registration Act, 1908 – s. 17(1) (d) – Appellant-landlord filed an
application u/s. 13 of the Act, 1949 and sought eviction of
respondent-tenant along with arrears of rent, house tax and interest
on the arrears of rent – The Rent Controller held that rent note is
not signed by both the parties – It was further held that although
time is not specified, but it is not a lease deed, so not compulsorily
registrable – The Rent Controller held that tenant was in arrears
of rent and house tax so the respondent-tenant is liable to eviction
from the premises in dispute – The Appellate Court did not agree
with the findings of the Rent Controller that rent note was not
compulsory registrable and set aside the judgment of the Rent
Controller – Aggrieved, the appellant filed a revision before the
High Court and the same was dismissed – On appeal, held: The
present is a case where rent deed does not prescribe any period
for which it is executed – When the lease deed does not mention
the period of tenancy, other conditions of the lease/rent deed and
intention of the parties has to be gathered to find out the true nature
of the lease deed/rent deed – The rent note contains only monthly
rent and payment month by month – As per law laid down by the
Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Das, there shall be a presumption
that the tenancy in the present case is monthly tenancy – When the
clauses of rent note are cumulatively read, the intention of the
tenant is more clear that tenancy was only monthly tenancy, which
could have been terminated on default of payment of rent by 5th
day of any month or by notice of one month – The rent deed did
not confer any right to tenant to continue in the tenancy for a
period of more than one year nor it can be said that tenancy was
created for a period of more than one year – Therefore, the rent
not was not such kind of rent note, which requires compulsory
   [2020] 5 S.C.R. 265
265
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
266
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
registration u/s. 17(1)(d) of the Act, 1908 – The Appellate Court
after holding that document-rent deed was compulsorily registrable
and having not registered allowed the appeal – No finding was
returned by the Appellate Court that tenant was not in default and
tenant has deposited the necessary amount to save himself from
eviction – Also, there was no finding by the Appellate Court
regarding the liability of the tenant to pay the house tax – Thus,
the judgment of the Appellate Court is unsustainable – The
judgment and decree of the Rent Controller directing eviction of
the tenant restored.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The rent note, which this Court is considering
contains only monthly  rent and payment month by month. As
per law laid down by this Court in Ram Kumar Das there shall
be a presumption that the tenancy in the present case is monthly
tenancy. When the clauses of rent note are cumulatively read,
the intention of the tenant is more than clear that tenancy was
only monthly tenancy, which could have been terminated on
default of payment of rent by 5th day of any month or by notice
of one month. The rent deed did not confer any right to tenant
to continue in the tenancy for a period of more than one year
nor it can be said that tenancy was created for a period of more
than one year. Clause (9) of rent note, which noticed the promise
of the tenant of payment of rent by increasing 10% each year
was a promise contingent on tenancy being continued beyond
one year but cannot make the tenancy year to year or tenancy
for a period of more than one year. Present was a case of tenancy
for which no period was specified and looking to all the clauses
cumulatively, this Court finds that the rent note was not such
kind of rent note, which requires compulsory registration under
Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908. [Para 19] [275-
G-H; 276-A-C]
2. One may further notice that Rent Controller had
returned a finding regarding rate of rent @Rs.2,000/- per month
and further the tenant was liable to pay the house tax, which was
not paid from 1999 to 2005 and the decree of eviction was passed
accordingly. The Appellate Court although accepted the finding
of the Rent Controller that rate of rent was @Rs.2,000/- and not
Rs.1,000/- but merely on the fi

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