Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The main point urged before this Court by is the earned Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner that the eviction on the ground of expiry of tenancy was illegal inasmuch as the period of tenancy expired on the basis of an unregistered subsequent lease is not maintainable as Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act would come into play, relying on a decision of a Single Bench of this Court as reported in 1989 PLJR 1162 Rajendra Bahal Bahal v. Desraj Singh. His further contention is that the personal necessity could also not be proved as such personal necessity could only be termed as a desire of the plaintiffs and not a need. Earned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite party has submitted that such sort of submission on the part of the petitioners regarding the expiry of tenancy is not maintainable as not only in the written statement but also in the evidence, it has been admitted that a subsequent agreement was arrived at after the expiry of the previous registered lease for five years and the subsequent agreement/lease was for 11 months alone and, as such, it does not require registration even as per Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act. It has further been submitted that the subsequent agreement is on the basis of Section 18 of the BBC Act and the BBC Act being a complete enactment it cannot attract even the provisions of the T.P. Act. To consider the rival submission of both the parties, some factual aspect is required to be considered. The first lease for five years was a registered one and that was entered in between the plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant No. 1. The second agreement/lease is an unregistered one and entered in between the plaintiff No. 2 and the defendant No. 2 and on this score, it is submitted that the second agreement/lease is not a continuation/extension of the previous registered lease. This sort of distinction has not been raised by the defendants in their written statement rather it could be found from the evidence also that the defendant No. 2 after the first lease was executed had started business in the suit premises and the defendant No. 1 admitted that she could not start business for paucity of fund. It was also admitted by both the parties that both the parties are joint Hindu Family and up-till-now there is no partition between the coparceners in either of the family. In the legal notice given from the side of the defendants, it could be found that the circumstances in which the second agreement was entered clearly disclosed that it was an extension of the earlier lease and not an independent one. Now only for argument's sake, a distinction is attempted to be made. On the facts and circumstances and on consideration of the averments in the second agreement, it could be found that the second agreement was nothing but an extension of the earlier lease and if that be so the second agreement comes within the purview of Section 18 of the BBC Act. The question of application of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act does not arise. Even if in my opinion, the lease being signed by both the parties of an immovable property does not require registration if the same is not for a year or more than a year. When the lease is for 11 months it did not require registration. The ruling cited by the earned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that means 1989 PLJR (supra) cannot be adhered to in the present case and it appears that in that case, no notice has been taken by the learned Single Judge regarding Section 18 of the BBC Act. Here in the present case from the very beginning the plaintiffs had hammered on Section 18 of the BBC Act and as per the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act the subsequent agreement is totally a legal one and the expiry period of that agreement definitely comes within the purview of Section 11(1)(e) of the Act itself. Learned Court below has rightly deciphered the oral and documentary evidence and also the legal phenomenon and came to the right finding that the plaintiffs could prove the ground of expiry of tenancy and thus entitlement is there of the plaintiffs for a decree for eviction.