TECHNICIANS STUDIO PRIVATE LTD. versus LILA GHOSH & ANR.

Citation: [1978] 1 S.C.R. 516 · Decided: 19-09-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.C. GUPTA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
516 
TECHNICIANS STUDIO PRIVATE LTD. 
v. 
LILA GHOSH & ANR. 
September 19, 1977 
[A. c. GUPTA AND s. MURTAZA FAzAL Au, JJ.J 
Transfer of Property 
Act (Act IV) 
.1882, sec. 53A-Doctrine of Part 
Pt.'rformance-Scope of. 
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956-Appellant coming into posfe.J.'-
sioll of i'he pre1nises as a 1es11lt of a co1np1011115e deCJee in the co111t-Tenns 
of con1pron1ise decree not registered and no lease deed executed subsequently--
Whether payn1ent <t,11d acceptance of rent creates a 111011thly tenancy entitling 
protectio~ ai'aifable under West Bengal Preniise:~ Tenancy Act 1956. 
In terms of the con1promise petition filed in the High Court in an earlier 
ejectment suit, it was ngreed by the predecessors-in-title of the respondent that 
the appellant would become "a direct tenant 
under the 
first 
respondent's 
husband and his brother 
who were then the 
owners of the 
property at a 
monthly rent of Rs. 10.00/- and that the lease would be for a period of 16 
years from May 19, 1954 \Vith option to the appellant to terminate the lease 
earlier on giving 60 days' notice on the lessors." 
No deed of lease was ever 
executed nor the petition of compromise containing the tern1s of settlement was 
registered and the appellanfs possession from May 19, 1954 was on the basis 
of the compromise. 
Respondent No. 1 after the expiry of the said period of 
lease served a 
notice on the appellant to 
quit and vacate the premises and 
thereafter filed. a title suit No. 59 of 1970 on ~fay 22, 1970 in the Third Court 
of the Subordinate 
Judge at Alipore for 
recovery of possession and mesne 
profits. 
The defence of the appellant was that by payment and acceptance of 
rent a monthly tenancy has been created in their favour which was continuing 
even ·after the expiry of the said 
period. 
The trial court found that to 
be 
effective as a lease for 16 years the petition of compromise required registra-
tion and this not having been done it could not create any interest in favour 
of the appellant in the premises though they were entitled to protect their pos~ 
session for a period of 16 years under s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. 
It also held that payment and acceptance of rent made in terms of the unregis-
tered compromise petition did not give rise to a right of tenancy and on the 
expiry of the said period, they had no protection against 
eviction and 
thus 
decreed the suit. 
Both the first appellate court and the High Court in second 
appeal affirmed the findings of the trial court. 
Dismissing the appeal by special leave, the Court, 
HELD: (1) Section 53A confers no active title on the transferee in posses-
sion. 
It only 
imposes 
statutory 
bar 
on 
the 
transferor. 
A person who 
is let into possession on the strength of a void lease 
does not 
acquire 
any interest in the property but gets under s. S3A only a right to defend his 
possession. 
Jn the instant case under the petition of compromise the appellant 
had to pay a monthly sum of Rs. 1000/- as rent during the period of intended 
lease which the appellant did. 
These monthly payments brought the appellant 
under the coverage of section 53A but from this fact albne that the appellant 
had performed his part of the contract it is not possible to conclude that a 
tenancy was brou_ght into existence'. 
Acceptance of the payments tendered as 
rent is not decisive of a tenancy. 
[520 A.~C} 
Probodh K111nar Das and Ors. v. Dantmara Tea Co. Ltd. and Ors. 66 I.A. 
293 and State of Punjab v. British India Corporation 
Ltd. 
[1964] 
(2) 
SCR 
114(123). referred, to. 
(2) Whether the relationship of _lan~lord and 
tenant exists between 
the 
parties depends on \Vhether the parties intended to create a tenancy and the 
intention has to be gathered from the facts and circumstances of the case. 
It 
is possible to find on the facts of a gi\'en case that payment n1ade by a trans-
TECHNICIANS STUDIO v. LILA GHOSH (Gupta,!.) 
517 
feree in possession were really not in terms of the contract but independent 
A 
of it <ind this might justify an inference of 
tenancy in his favour. 
In 
the 
instant case the payment of a monthly 
sum as rent by the 
appellant to the 
plaintiff-respondent who accepted the same did not create any tenancy. 
The 
queslion is ultin1atcly one of fact. 
[520 E-F] 
Rani Klanar Das v. Jagadisli Chandra Deb & Anr. [1952] SCR 269, held not 
applicable. 
(3) Part performance in this country does not give rise to an

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