Summary
The Supreme Court upheld eviction of a tenant claiming a six-month notice entitlement on the basis of an unregistered five-year lease. The claimed manufacturing purpose was a central disputed term and could not be proved from the deed as a collateral matter. Neither its commercial description nor the tenant’s general statement about a rubber business established manufacturing use. The tenancy was treated as monthly and the tenant’s appeal dismissed.
Issues
- Whether the unregistered five-year deed could establish manufacturing purpose as a collateral matter.
- Whether the tenant proved entitlement to six months’ notice instead of fifteen days.
- Whether admission of the deed at trial cured its registration defect.
Provisions considered
- Sections 106 and 107, Transfer of Property Act, 1882The five-year lease required a registered instrument. The unregistered deed and deficient evidence of manufacturing purpose did not establish the claimed six-month notice entitlement; the tenancy was monthly. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15)
- Sections 17(1)(d) and 49, including proviso, Registration Act, 1908The compulsory-registration bar prevented proof of the central disputed lease-purpose term from the deed. Collateral use must concern an independent or divisible matter, rather than enforcement of an important lease term. (¶¶ 8, 10, 12, 13)
Held
- A five-year lease is compulsorily registrable. Its admission by the trial court could not legitimise use barred by statute at the appellate stage; implied consent cannot confer admissibility. A tenancy could nevertheless be established independently of the invalid instrument. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10)
- Nature or character of possession may sometimes be a collateral matter, but it is not invariably so. Here the purpose of letting was an integral lease term and the main dispute determining the notice requirement. Section 49’s collateral exception could not be used to prove it from the unregistered deed. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- The tenant bore the burden of proving manufacturing purpose through pleading and evidence. References to business or factory premises, a factory shed or godown, and a general statement about rubber business did not establish the manufacturing activity required by Section 106. The evidence did not explain what work was actually carried on. (¶¶ 11, 14, 15)
- The claimed six-month notice requirement did not arise on this record. The monthly tenancy and eviction judgment were sustained; the Court did not decide the alternative issue concerning the notice falling four days short of six months. (¶¶ 10, 15)
Result
Tenant’s appeal dismissed without costs, sustaining the eviction decision. Pending applications disposed of.