http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: SATISH KUMAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ZARIF AHMED & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       20/02/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment of the  Allahabad High  Court, made  on October  2, 1982 and August 9, 1983 in Civil Revision No.3613/78.      The admitted  position is  that the  appellant-landlord had entered  into an agreement of lease with the respondent- tenant on August 30, 1969 for a period of 11 months for rent @ Rs.220/- per mensem. Notice of demand for arrears and also for termination  of tenancy for non-payment was delivered to the respondent  on April  8, 1972. Thereafter, the appellant filed suit  on the  same cause  side for  ejectment  of  the respondent. The  trial Court  decreed the  suit on  May  19, 1977. The tenants then filed the revision in the High Court. The  learned   single  Judge   referred  the  following  two questions for decision by a Division Bench:      "1. Whether  any term  of  a  lease      deed required  under Section 107 of      the Transfer  of property Act to be      registered, could  be pressed  into      service for  a  collateral  purpose      within the  meaning of  the proviso      to  Section   49  of   the   Indian      Registration Act ?      2. Whether in the instant case, the      relationship   of    landlord   and      tenant, the  rate of  rent and  the      period for which the original lease      has been  granted could  be  looked      into as  a collateral purpose under      the proviso  to Section  49 of  the      Indian Registration Act?"      The Division  Bench has answered the reference and held that the  lease deed  is inadmissible evidence and cannot be looked into  and oral  evidence in  proof of  the tenancy is also inadmissible.  After the  reference was  answered,  the learned single Judge, following the reference order, allowed the revision  and set  aside the  decree of  eviction. Thus, this appeal by special leave.      The only  question that  arises for  consideration  is: whether  the   unregistered  lease  deed  is  admissible  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

evidence  ?   Section  17(1)(d)   of  the  Registration  Act postulates Thus:      "(1) the  following document  shall      be registered  if the  property  to      which it  relates is  situate in  a      district in  which and  if  it  may      have been  executed on or after the      date on  which, Act No.XVI of 1864,      or  the  Indian  Registration  Act,      1866, or  the  Indian  Registration      Act,    1871    or    the    Indian      Registration  Act,   1877,  or  the      Indian Registration  Act, 1908 came      or comes into force, namely ---      (d) leases  of  immovable  property      from year  to year, or for any term      exceeding one  year, or reserving a      yearly rent."      "Instrument" has  been defined  in Section 2(14) of the Indian  Stamp   Act,  1899  postulating  that  "[I]nstrument includes every  document by which any right or liability is, or purports  to be  created, transferred,  limited, extended extinguished or record.      Section 3  of the  Transfer of  Property Act  1882 (for short the ‘TP Act’) also defines "instrument" to mean a non- testamentary instrument. Section 107 of the TP Act regulates how lease  is to  be made.  The first  part thereof provides that a lease of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent, can be made  only be  a registered  instrument. The  second part thereof gives  exception to the first part and provides that all other  leases of  immoveable property may be made either by a  registered instrument or by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession.      The question,  therefore, that  arises is  : whether  a lease of  immoveable property  from month to month or for 11 months is  a compulsorily  registerable document, through it was reduced  to  writing  as  an  instrument  defined  under Section 2(14)  of the  Stamp Act?  A conjoint reading of the first part  of section 107 rad with Section 17(1) (d) of the Registration Act,  as extracted  hereinbefore, does indicate that a  lease of  immoveable property  from year to year, or for any  term exceeding  one year or reserving a yearly rent should be made only by a registered instrument and all other instruments, though  reduced to  writing and  possession  is delivered  thereunder,  are  not  compulsorily  registerable instruments.      Section 49  of the Registration Act prohibits receiving in evidence certain types of documents. It reads as under :      "No document required by Section 17      by any provision of the Transfer of      Property Act, 1882 to be registered      shall--      (a)  affect any  immovable property      comprised therein, or      (c)  be received as evidence of any      transaction affecting such property      or conferring such power;      unless it has been registered:"      The proviso is not applicable to the facts in this case and, therefore,  it  is  not  necessary  to  look  into  the exceptions  engrafted   vis-a-vis  receipt  of  a  documents comprising of three circumstances mentioned therein, namely, unregistered document used for therein, namely, unregistered document used  for enforcement of specific performance under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

the Specific  Relief Act  or used  as an  evidence  of  part performance of the contract under Section 53-A of the TP Act or using  evidence for collateral transactions. The combined effect of  all the provisions is that an unregistered leases deed executed from month to month for a period not exceeding 11 months,  though reduced  to  writing  and  possession  is delivered thereunder  to a  tenant, is  not  a  compulsorily registerable  instrument  and,  therefore,  the  prohibition contained  in   Section  49   of  the  Registration  Act  is inapplicable.  Therefore,  the  document  is  admissible  in evidence to  consider the  effect of  the immovable property contained therein  or to  receive  as  an  evidence  of  any transaction vis-a-vis such property.      The High  Court, therefore,  was not  right in reaching the conclusion that an unregistered document is inadmissible in evidence  and cannot  be looked  into for  the purpose of effecting the  rights as  landlord and  tenant created under the document.      The appeal  is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the High Court  stands set  aside and  the decree  of the  trial Court stands  restored, but  in the  circumstances,  without costs.