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

PETITIONER: SHRI JANKI DEVI BHAGAT TRUST, AGRA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAM SWARUP JAIN (DEAD) BY LRS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/08/1995

BENCH: MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J) BENCH: MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J) PUNCHHI, M.M.

CITATION:  1995 AIR 2482            1995 SCC  (5) 314  JT 1995 (7)   185        1995 SCALE  (4)709

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar. J.      The appellant-trust  had given shop premises No. 1930/1 situated in  Mohalla Ghatia Azam Khan, Agra belonging to the appellant to  the original  respondent on lease at a monthly rent of Rs. 75/- sometime in 1954. The terms relating to the tenancy which  were agreed  upon between  the  parties  were reduced to  writing. This document is Ex.12. It is, however, not registered.  As the  respondent did  not pay any rent to the appellant  since 1.1.1960  the appellant served a notice to quit  dated 27.3.1961  on the respondent and filed a suit for ejectment  and recovery of arrears of rent. The suit was decreed  by  the  Trial  Court  but  was  dismissed  by  the appellate court  on the  ground that the appellant was not a registered body  and all  the trustees  of the trust had not joined in  the  suit.  The  appellant-trust  thereafter  got itself registered on 8.5.1963. The appellant served a notice to quit  on the respondent which is dated 30th of May, 1963. The notice  period is  30 days. As the respondent failed and neglected to  comply with  the notice  the appellant filed a suit against  respondent for ejectment & recovery of arrears of rent  and other consequential reliefs. The suit was filed before the  Munsif’s Court  at Agra. The suit was decreed by the trial  court. The  respondent filed an appeal before the Additional Civil Judge, Agra.      The only  point which  was raised  by the respondent in appeal was  that the  notice dated 30.5.1963 terminating the tenancy of  the respondent  was invalid because the lease in favour of  the respondent was a manufacturing lease; and six months’ notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was  necessary in  order to  terminat the tenancy of the respondent. The appellate court rejected this contention and held that  in view  of the  agreement which was entered into between the parties (Ex.12) there was an express term of the contract that  a notice  in writing of fifteen days only was

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

necessary for the termination of tenancy.      In second  appeal, however,  before the  High Court  at Allahabad, a learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that the  terms of  the lease  which are  recorded in  Ex.12 cannot be  relied upon  in view of the provisions of section 107 of  the Transfer  of Property Act. Hence the term in the agreement  relating   to  giving  fifteen  days’  notice  of termination cannot  be looked  at. He held that as the lease was a  manufacturing lease,  six months’ notice was required under the  deeming provision  of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property  Act. In  its absence,  the suit  must fail. He, therefore, allowed  the appeal and dismissed the appellant’s suit for  ejectment. Learned  Single Judge, however, decreed the claim  of the appellant for arrears of rent. The present appeal is from this judgment of the High Court.      Under Section  107 of  the Transfer  of Property  Act a lease of  immoveable property  from year  to year of for any term exceeding  one year  can be  made only  by a registered instrument. Any  lease of  this kind would be void unless it is created  by a  registered instrument. All other leases of immoveable property  may be  made  either  by  a  registered instrument or  by an  oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession. All the courts below have held that there was a valid  lease. The high Court has also recorded that it was not the contention of the respondent that his lease was from year to  year. The  contention was  that the lease was for a term exceeding  one year  and was,  therefore,  compulsorily registerably under  the first  part of  section 107  of  the Transfer of property Act. This contention has been negatived by the High Court as also by both the courts below. The High Court has  held that  the lease was not for a term exceeding one year, and so was not compulsorily registerable under the first part  of Section 107. It, however, held that since the lease was for a manufacturing purpose, six months’ notice to quit  was  required  under  section  106.  In  its  absence, termination was not valid.      This reasoning  is fallacious.  It is  true that  Ex.12 which is  not registered,  cannot be looked at because it is not registered.  But the  factum of lease is not in dispute. All the  courts have  held that it was a lease from month to month and  was not for a term exceeding one year. In view of this finding,  the deeming  provisions of  the first part of section 106  of the  Transfer  of  property  Act  cannot  be attracted in the present case.      Section 106  provides, inter  alia, that in the absence of a  contract between  the parties,  a lease  of immoveable property for  manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year terminable by six months’ notice. In the present case there is a clear finding to the effect that the lease  in question  was not  from year  to year or for a period exceeding  one year. Therefore, even though the lease may be  for a manufacturing purpose, since the lease was not from year  to year,  six months’  notice was not required. A manufacturing lease  which is  not from  year to  year  ,six months’  notice   was  not  required  six  months’notice  of termination. It will fall in the second half of section 106, requiring fifteen  days’ notice of termination. A lease from month to  month or  a lease  other than a lease from year to year is terminable by fifteen days’ notice. Hence the notice in the  present case  is a  valid notice  to quit.  The High Court, having  come to the conclusion that the lease was not for a  period exceeding  one year,  and was not a lease from year to  year erred  in holding  that six  months’ notice to quit was required. Such a notice is required, provided there is no  contract to  the contrary,  only when a manufacturing

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

lease is,  or is  deemed to  be, from year to year. This not being the  case, the  lease is  terminable by  fifteen days’ notice even if the lease is a manufacturing lease.      The appeal is, therefore, allowed with costs. The order of the  High Court  is set  side and  the order of the first appellate court is restored.