Referring to Section 107 of the TP Act which provides that a lease of a movable property from year to year or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent, can be made only by a registered document, and finding that the rent agreement was tendered in evidence without any objection from the side of the defendant, the Kerala High Court clarified that the tenancy agreement beyond the period of one year is a compulsorily registrable document under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 as well as under Section 107 of the TP Act, where the period of lease between the present plaintiff and defendant was three years.

Finding that the defendant had filed written statement admitting his status as that of a tenant for payment of rent at the rate of Rs.800/- per month and no other right claimed otherwise than that of a tenant, the High Court observed that “Indubitably an unregistered document, required to be registered, if unregistered, the same is inadmissible in evidence. However, as provided under proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, the same can be used for collateral purposes”.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed that “in a case, where there is a contract and determination of lease by efflux of time is provided in the contract as per Section 111(a) of the TP Act, the lease shall come to an end”.

Advocate K. Siju appeared for the Appellant, whereas Advocate Latheesh Sebastian appeared for the Respondent.

The brief facts of the case were that the plaint schedule shop originally owned and possessed by the plaintiff, was given on rent to the defendant for a period of three years, agreeing to pay rent at the rate of eight hundred per month. While occupying the building as tenant, the defendant defaulted payment of rent due for a period of 30 months. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed suit to get vacant possession of the plaint schedule shop room and for getting decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from causing any harm, obstruction, waste or any mischief which would affect the right of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule shop room. The defendant resisted the suit, admitting execution of the rent deed in favour of the plaintiff, contending that the defendant constructed a shop room in the year 1989 in the building and he had spent Rs. 50,000/- for the said purpose. Further, the defendant used to pay rent to one Sreekumaran Nair, who was the manager of the brother of the plaintiff. That apart, it has been contended that the statutory notice prescribed under Section 106 of the Transfer of Properties Act, 1882 was not issued before filing the suit for eviction and as such, the suit is not maintainable. After recording evidence, the Trial Court granted the decree.

After considering the submission, the Bench found that the lease arrangement started with effect from Aug 01, 2009 for 3 years and as on July 31, 2012, the term of lease came to an end and.

Therefore, the Bench highlighted that the present suit is one filed after termination of tenancy by efflux of time and in such a case, notice mandated under Section 106 of the TP Act is not necessary.

The Bench further found that the trial court as well as the appellate court meticulously analyzed the evidence available and found that the plaintiff is the landlord of the plaint schedule room, which was given on rent to the defendant and the defendant admitted his status as a tenant.

Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to get recovery of possession of the same, being the landlord, added the Bench.

Cause Title: Ratheesh v. V. S Mary [Neutral Citation: 2023/KER/55491]

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Kerala High CourtJustice A Badharudeen

Pankaj Bajpai