Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 45
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5659-5660 OF 2002
M/s. K.B.Saha & Sons Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant.
VERSUS
M/s. Development Consultant Ltd. ...Respondent
J U D G M E N T
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.
1. These two appeals are directed against the
common final judgment and order dated 18th
of May, 2001 of the High Court of Calcutta
passed in F.A. Nos. 39-40 of 1999
affirming the judgment and decree dated
11th of November, 1998 passed by the Asstt.
District Judge, 9th Court at Alipore, South
1
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 45
24 Parganas whereby the two suits namely,
Title Suit No 19/92 and 39/92 filed at the
instance of the appellant were dismissed.
2.The facts leading to the filing of these
two appeals are narrated in a nutshell as
follows:
M/s. K.B. Saha & Sons Pvt. Ltd. (in
short "the appellant") brought Title Suit
No. 19/92 before the 9th Court of the
Asstt. District Judge, Alipore, South
24 Parganas against M/s. Development
Consultants Ltd. (in short "the respondent")
alleging, inter alia, that the appellant was
the owner of Premises No. 28/8, Gariahat
Road, within Police Station Lake in the
district of South 24 Parganas (hereinafter
called "the suit property"). By a memorandum
dated 30th of March, 1976, the respondent
became a tenant in respect of a flat, as
fully described in Schedule-A of the plaint,
in the suit property (hereinafter called
2
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 45
"the suit premises") for the residential
accommodation of a particular officer Mr.
Keshab Das and members of his family and for
no other purpose. The monthly rent was fixed
at Rs. 1100/-, which included the rent of
fixtures, fittings and parking place payable
in advance by 5th of the current month for
which the rent became due. The monthly rent
and other charges were increased to Rs.
1210/- from September, 1985. The appellant
alleged that the memorandum dated 30th of
March, 1976 specifically provided that if
the respondent intended to use the suit
premises for any purpose other than
providing residential accommodation to its
named officer Mr. Keshab Das and members of
his family, the respondent would have to
seek a written consent from the appellant
bringing the change of purpose by a notice.
3. By a letter dated 6th of March, 1992, the
respondent informed the appellant that Mr.
3
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 45
Keshab Das had vacated the suit premises and
that it wanted to make repairs and to allot
the same to another employee to which the
appellant objected and replied by a letter
dated 12th of March, 1992 that the respondent
had no right to allot the suit premises to
another employee and, therefore, must
surrender the same once vacated by
Mr. Keshab Das. However, the appellant was
informed by the respondent that they would
not surrender the suit premises and shall
carry out the repair work in it. In this
backdrop, the aforesaid Title Suit No. 19/92
was filed by the appellant for declaration
and permanent injunction that as per the
terms of the Memorandum of Agreement dated
30th of March, 1976, the respondent had no
right to allot the suit premises to any
other employee after the same was vacated by
Mr. Keshab Das and members of his family. By
an interim order passed on 13th of March,
1992 in the aforesaid suit, the Assistant
4
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 45
District Judge, 9th Court at Alipore had
passed an order of injunction restraining
the respondent from allowing any other
person except Mr. Das to occupy the suit
premises. This interim order was made final
on 2nd of September, 1992. On 18th of March,
1995, a notice under Section 13(6) of the
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (in
short "the Act") was served on the
respondent asking them to vacate the suit
premises and on failure of the respondent to
vacate the suit premises as desired in the
notice, another suit was filed by the
appellant being Title Suit No. 39/95 praying
for ejectment of the respondent from the
suit premises. The aforesaid suit was
brought by the appellant with similar
allegations as contained in Title Suit No.
19/92 and it was alleged, inter alia, that
although the respondent was bound to vacate
the suit premises after Mr. Das had vacated
the same, yet the respondent had not vacated
5
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 45
the suit premises and, therefore, the
appellant was constrained to file the
aforesaid suit for eviction of the
respondent and damages and consequential
relief. The respondent entered appearance
and contested both the suits by filing
written statements. In the written
statements, it was the defence of the
respondent that the respondent was in urgent
need of rented accommodation for its officer
and, therefore, they hurriedly put their
signatures on the agreement dated 30th of
March, 1976. The respondent further alleged
that the tenancy was taken by them for
providing residential accommodation to its
officer Mr. Keshab Das who was only an
officer of the respondent and it was the
respondent who was the tenant of the suit
premises and not the named officer Mr.
Keshab Das. Therefore, according to the
respondent, even after the suit premises was
vacated by Mr. Das, the tenancy of the
6
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 45
respondent continued and it was still
continuing. The allegation of the appellant
that the respondent had no right to allow
another officer to occupy the suit premises
was misconceived and baseless. It was
further alleged in the written statements
that the respondent had duly informed the
appellant that the employee of the
respondent i.e. Mr. Das had left the suit
premises and that they were going to allot
the suit premises to another officer. It was
also asserted that since it was the
respondent who was the tenant under the
appellant and paid the rent to the
appellant, such tenancy was protected by the
provisions of the Act. It was further the
case of the respondent that the tenancy
agreement entered into by the parties was
illegal and invalid and such an agreement
was against the Statute. Accordingly, in
both the written statements, the respondent
asserted that neither any order of
7
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 45
injunction could be passed against them nor
could the suit be decreed in favour of the
appellant directing eviction of the
respondent from the suit premises. By a
common judgment dated 11th of November, 1998,
the suits of the appellant were dismissed.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid
common judgment of the trial Court, two
appeals were filed in the High Court at
Calcutta, which came to be registered as FA
Nos. 39-40 of 1998. By the impugned common
judgment of the High Court, the aforesaid
two appeals being FA Nos. 39-40 of 1998 were
dismissed and two Special Leave Petitions
were filed against them in respect of which
leave has already been granted.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for
the appellant and examined the judgment of
the High Court as well as of the trial court
and other materials on record. We keep it on
8
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 45
record that none had appeared for the
respondent despite our best efforts to bring
the respondent to appear before us and
contest the appeals. We also keep it on
record that in view of the interim order
granted by the High Court as well as by the
trial Court to the extent that the
respondent cannot be allowed to bring any
officer other than Mr. Keshab Das to occupy
the suit premises, the respondent has kept
the suit premises under lock and key without
any occupation of any officer in the same.
6. On a perusal of the pleadings of the
parties, it is pellucid that the case of
the appellant in both the suits was based
on the memorandum of lease agreement dated
30th of March, 1976. In this view of the
matter, it is expedient to reproduce some
of the relevant Clauses in the Tenancy
Agreement between the parties before we
proceed further with this appeal.
9
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 45
Accordingly, the relevant portion of the
memorandum dated 30th of March, 1976 is
reproduced as under: -
"THIS MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT made this the
30th day of March, one thousand nine
hundred and seventy six BETWEEN M/s. K.
B. Saha & Sons (Biri Merchants)
Limited, a body corporate
registered under the Companies Act,
1956 having its registered office
at 28/8, Gariahat Road within
P.S. Tollygunge, Calcutta-700 029
within the local limits of
Corporation of Calcutta
hereinafter called the landlords
(which expression unless
repugnant to the context shall
include its successors and
assigns) of the First Part AND
DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LTD, a
body corporate registered under the
Companies Act,1956 having its
registered office at present at
premises No.24-B, Park street,
Calcutta, within P.S. Park
Street, Calcutta- 16 hereinafter
called the tenant (which expression
unless repugnant to the context
shall include its successors and
assigns.) of the Second Part;
W HEREAS the party of the F IRST PART ,
the Landlord hereof is the sole
owner and proprietor of
multistoreyed buildings being
Premises No. 28/8, Gariahat Road,
within P.S. Tollygunge, Calcutta-29
10
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 45
within the local limits of
corporation of Calcutta AND WHEREAS
the said Landlord, party of the
first part hereof offered to let
out flat No. 3 on the 2nd floor of
the said premises along with
fittings, fixtures and
installations therein at a total
monthly rental of Rs.1100/-
(Rupees One Thousand One Hundred)
only inclusive of rent of fittings
and fixtures and service charges
and parking space for one car AND
WHEREAS the party of the second
part hereof approached the party
of the first part hereof and
offered to it the said flat No.3
of the 2nd floor of the said
premises No,28/8, Gariahat Road,
Calcutta-29 for the use and
occupation of its present Chief
Engineer (Cement) of the aforesaid
party Mr. Keshab Das and the
members of his family only
agreeing and accepting to the
aforesaid offer by the party of
the first part at a total rental
of Rs.1,100/ - ( Rupees One
thousand one hundred only)
inclusive of the rent of fittings
and fixtures, service charges and
parking space for one car AND
WHEREAS the party of the first part
hereof has agreed to let out the
said flat to the party hereto of
the second part for the use and
occupation of its present said
Chief Engineer (Cement) and his
family members only AND WHEREAS the
party of the first part agrees to
11
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 45
give vacant possession of the
said tenancy and the party of the
second part hereto agrees to take
possession of the said tenancy for
the use and occupation of the said
Chief Engineer (Cement)and his
family members on First day of
April, 1976"
Clause-9 of the Agreement runs as
follows :-
"That the party of the second
part hereof agrees and undertakes
that the tenancy will be used and
occupied by its present officer
Mr. Keshab Das and members of his
family for residential purpose
only and for no other purposes.
If the tenant intends to use the
tenancy for occupation of any
other officer or employees, it
will seek for written consent of
the landlord and the landlord
shall have the option to agree or
disagree to give such consent".
Clause 20 of the said agreement is as
follows :-
"That the tenant shall vacate and
deliver vacant Khas possession of
the demised premises unto the
landlord on termination or
12
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 45
determination of the tenancy with
whole of the fittings and effects
in as sound, perfect and clear
condition as they were at the
commencement of the tenancy
excepting natural wear and tear".
7. In view of the pleadings of the parties,
the following issues were framed by the
trial court in Title Suit No.19 of 1992: -
1.Has the plaintiff any cause of
action for the suit ?
2.Is the suit maintainable in its
present form and in law?
3.Was the suit premises let out
by the plaintiff to the
defendant for providing
accommodation to its particular
officer viz. Mr.Keshab Das ?
4.Is the plaintiff entitled to
get the decree as prayed for ?
5. To what relief, if any, is the
plaintiff entitled ?
8. In Title Suit No.39/95, the following
issues were framed: -
1.Is the suit maintainable?
2.Whether the notice of ejectment
is valid, legal and
sufficient ? If so, was it duly
served upon the defendant ?
13
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 45
3.Whether the defendant is a
defaulter in payment of rent as
alleged ?
4.Whether the defendant has
caused damage to the suit
premises ?
5.Whether the defendant has
violated the terms of the
memorandum of agreement by not
vacating the premises after the
same having been vacated by
Mr.Keshab Das ?
6. To what relief, if any, is the
plaintiff entitled ?.
9. Considering the different clauses of the
lease agreement and on consideration of the
evidence on record and the contentions of
the learned counsel for the parties, the
trial court finally came to the following
findings : -
I) The suit premises was let out by the
appellant to the respondent initially for
providing accommodation to its particular
officer namely Mr. Keshab Das and members
of his family, which could not mean that
the tenancy was created exclusively for
the accommodation and residence of Mr.
Keshab Das and his family only.
II) The tenancy was created in respect of the
suit premises in favour of the respondent.
14
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 45
III) Since the tenancy was determinable and
terminable by a legal sufficient valid
notice under the Act to the respondent,
the respondent could be directed to vacate
the suit premises only on proof of the
grounds mentioned in Section 13(1) of the
Act.
IV) Since the respondent was depositing rent
in the office of the Rent Controller,
Calcutta, the respondent was not a
defaulter in payment of rent as a tenant
and therefore, not liable to be evicted on
the ground of default.
V) The respondent was a tenant in respect of
the suit premises although it was taken
exclusively for the benefit of the named
officer and therefore, the named officer
Mr. Das was only occupying the suit
premises on behalf of the respondent.
VI) Since, admittedly, the lease agreement was
not registered, which document under
Section 49 of the Registration Act was
required to be registered, the said
agreement was not admissible in evidence.
VII) The lease agreement, being an unregistered
document, could not be used to establish
that the suit premises was let out to the
respondent only for the purpose of
occupation of its employee Mr. Keshab Das
and the members of his family for their
residential purpose and for no other
purpose.
VIII) From the agreement, which could be seen as
a collateral evidence, the purpose of the
tenancy was clearly for residence and,
therefore, the question of violation of
15
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 45
Clause (o) of Section 108 of the Transfer
of Property Act by the respondent in the
facts and circumstances of the case could
not arise at all.
10. On the aforesaid findings arrived at by
the Trial Court, both the suits were
dismissed and the High Court on the same
lines had affirmed the findings of the trial
court and held that no ground was made out
by the appellant to evict the respondent
from the suit premises.
11. Mr. Somnath Mukherjee, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant submitted that the lease
agreement (Ext.4) creating tenancy from
month to month in respect of the suit
premises was not compulsorily
registerable under Section 107 of the
Transfer of Property Act. He also
contended that the High Court as well as
the trial court were wrong in holding
16
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 45
that the lease agreement being an
unregistered document cannot be used to
establish the provisions made in that
agreement that the suit premises was let
out to the respondent only for the
purpose of occupation of the respondent’s
named officer Mr. Keshab Das and members
of his family and for no other purpose.
He further contended that since the lease
agreement in question was not required to
be registered, the prohibition contained
in Section 49 of the Registration Act was
not applicable. He also contended in the
alternative that even if it was held that
the lease agreement in question was
compulsorily registrable, even then the
purpose of letting specified in the lease
agreement was a ‘collateral purpose’ and
accordingly, the lease agreement could be
looked into under the proviso to Section
49 of the Registration Act and also that
the said term did not extinguish the
17
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 45
tenant’s right under the Act. Lastly, he
contended that the respondent had
violated section 108(o) of the Transfer
of Property Act and, accordingly, was
liable to be evicted under Section 13(1b)
of the Act. Mr. Mukherjee contended that
the lease agreement between the parties
was not illegal and against the statute.
In support of this contention,
Mr.Mukherjee relied on a decision of this
Court in the case of Smt. Juthika Mulick
& Anr. vs. Dr.Mahendra Yashwant Bal &
Ors. [AIR 1995 SC 1142] and he strongly
relied on paragraph 42 of the said
decision which says:
"As general proposition of law,
there can be no demur that there
is no estoppel against a statute.
The language of Section 13 of the
Act makes it clear that only if
anything is found contrary in any
other law an order or decree for
the recovery of possession of any
premises shall be made by any
court in favour of the landlord
against a tenant. This wording is
18
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 45
peculiar unlike most of the Rent
Control Legislations where
contract to the contrary is also
enveloped in affording protection
to the tenants against eviction.
In view of the language of Section
13(1) of the Act, the parties have
freedom to contract out of
Section. In this case clause (1)
of the lease-deed extracted above
stipulates that the heirs of
lessee will have no right to hold
after the death of lessee and they
have to deliver quiet, peaceful
and vacant possession within three
months after the demise of the
original lessee. In other words,
the right has been made
specifically not heritable."
12. In order to appreciate the submissions
made by Mr. Mukherjee, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant, it
would be necessary for us to look into
Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act
which would be, in our view, material for
rendering proper decision in this appeal.
Accordingly, Section 107 of the Transfer of
Property Act may be quoted which runs as
under :
19
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 45
"Lease how made - A lease of
immoveable property from year to
year, or for any term exceeding one
year or reserving a yearly rent,
can be made only by a registered
instrument.
All other leases of immoveable
property may be made either by a
registered instrument or by oral
agreement accompanied by delivery
of possession.
Where a lease of immoveable
property is made by a registered
instrument, such instrument or,
where there are more instruments
than one, each such instrument
shall be executed by both the
lessor and the lessee.
Provided that the State Government
may from time to time, by
notification in the Official
Gazette, direct that leases of
immoveable property, other than
leases from year to year, or for
any term exceeding one year, or
reserving a yearly rent, or any
class of such leases, may be made
by unregistered instrument or by
oral agreement without delivery of
possession.
13. Another section which would also be
material for us to decide this appeal is -
20
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 45
Section 49 of the Registration Act which
runs as under :
"Effect of non-registration of
documents required to be registered
- No document required by Sec.17
[or by any provision of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4
of 1882) to be registered shall -
(a) affect any immoveable property
comprised therein, or
(b) confer any power to adopt, or
(c) be received as evidence of any
transaction affecting such
property or conferring such
power, unless it has been
registered :
Provided that an unregistered
document affecting immoveable
property and required by this Act
or the Transfer of Property Act,
1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered
may be received as evidence of a
contract in a suit for specific
performance under Chapter II of the
Specific Relief Act, 1877 (3 of
1877), or as evidence of any
collateral transaction not required
to be effected by registered
instrument."
14. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellant and after going through the
judgment of the High Court as well as of the
trial court, we do not find any ground for
21
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 22 of 45
which interference can be made with the
judgment of the High Court. We may note that
it was the case of the respondent before the
High Court that it was protected by the
provisions of the Act and that it could not
be evicted only because as per the
agreement, the tenancy was to be occupied by
one of its officers. The appellant, on the
other hand, as noted hereinabove, placed
reliance on the decision of this court in
Smt. Juthika Mullick’s case [supra], to put
forth the point that the respondent was
bound to vacate the premises after the said
officer had left the premises and relying on
Smt.Juthika Mulick’s case [supra] submitted
that the lease agreement was not at all
contrary to the provisions of the Act and
that the parties were at liberty to contract
out of the Section delineating the various
grounds for eviction. We may note at this
stage that in that decision, this court had
held that although the tenant was protected
22
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 23 of 45
under the provisions of Section 13 of the
Act and such tenant could be evicted only
for one or more grounds as provided in that
Act, the parties had the freedom to enter
into an agreement to take their case out of
the provisions of that Section i.e. the
parties were at liberty to contract out of
that section. Before we deal with the
submission of Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant, on
this question, we may look into the findings
arrived at by the High Court on this
question. The High Court in the impugned
judgment has come to a conclusion that the
decision in the case of Smt. Juthika
Mulick’s case (Supra) cannot be of any
benefit to the appellant on the ground that
in Smt.Juthika Mulick’s case, the respondent
had leased out the premises in question in
favour of the lessee under a registered deed
of sale whereas in the instant case, the
lease deed was not registered. The High
23
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 24 of 45
Court has observed that the lease agreement
between the parties was in effect an
agreement for lease of the suit premises and
was unregistered. Relying on Section 49 of
the Registration Act, the High Court
observed that a document purporting to be a
lease and required to be registered under
Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act
is not admissible in evidence if it is not
registered. Proviso to Section 49, however,
provides that although a lease deed falling
under the provision of Section 107 of the
Transfer of Property Act will not be
admissible in evidence if the same is not
registered but that deed may be used as
evidence of any collateral transaction not
required to be effected by a registered
instrument. Therefore, the High Court
observed that the question to be decided in
this appeal is whether the conditions noted
in the lease deed could be looked into for
determining the question that the tenancy in
24
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 25 of 45
question would be used only for the purpose
of occupation of the named officer of the
respondent.
15. Section 49 clearly provides that a
document purporting to be a lease and
required to be registered under Section 107
will not be admissible in evidence if the
same is not registered. Proviso to this
section, however, as noted hereinabove,
provides that an unregistered lease deed may
be looked into as evidence of collateral
facts. Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel for
the appellant argued before us that the
tenancy in question was exclusively granted
for the benefit of the named officer and his
family and unless the landlord gave his
consent, no other person could use it and
such condition in the lease agreement is
admissible for ascertaining the purpose of
allotting the suit premises which according
to the appellant is a collateral fact.
25
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 26 of 45
16. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellant, we are of the view that the
decision of this Court in Smt. Juthika
Mullick’s case [supra], on which strong
reliance was placed by the learned counsel
for the appellant is of no help to the
appellant because as rightly pointed out by
the High Court, the said decision was based
on a registered deed of lease. In
Smt. Juthika Mulick’s case [supra], as noted
herein earlier, it has been held that the
language of Section 13 of the Act makes it
clear that notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in any other law, an
order or decree for the recovery of
possession of any premises shall be made by
the court in favour of the landlord against
a tenant on the grounds mentioned in that
section. It was further observed that in
view of the language of Section 13(1) of the
Act, the parties have freedom to contract
26
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 27 of 45
out of the Section. In the aforesaid
judgment of this Court, on which strong
reliance was placed by the appellant, the
fact was that the predecessor-in-interest of
the respondents in that appeal leased out
the premises in question in favour of one
Lal Bihari Mulick in a registered deed of
lease at a monthly rental of Rs. 160/- and
the lease deed contained a covenant that the
lease was for the lifetime of the lessee and
his heirs, executors, administrators,
representatives and the heirs must yield up
and deliver quiet, peaceful and vacant
possession of the demised premises within
three months from the date of death of the
lessee unconditionally and without any
objection whatsoever. It was further
stipulated that they shall have no right to
handover the demised premises after the said
period under any circumstances. The lessee
died on 16th of December, 1970 and his heirs
did not deliver vacant possession in favour
27
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 28 of 45
of the lessors or their successors in
interest and this necessitated filing of the
suit for eviction of the defendants. In
that decision, the main defence raised in
the written statement was that the original
lessee Lal Bihari Mulick, having died on 16th
of December, 1970, the registered lease
dated 11th of July, 1966 shall fall under the
category of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy
Act and the tenants were residing in the
demised premises with the said lessee namely
Lal Bihari Mullick during his lifetime
became monthly tenants under the plaintiffs
of that case by operation of law. In view
of the aforesaid facts and considering the
fact that the aforesaid decision of this
Court was rendered on the basis of a
registered lease deed, we are of the view
that the said decision is clearly
distinguishable from the present case
because of the fact that in the present
case, there was no registered deed of lease
28
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 29 of 45
nor was there any such covenant as mentioned
hereinabove. Therefore, we do not find any
ground to place any reliance on the
aforesaid decision of this court.
17. As we have already noted that under the
proviso to Section 49 of the Registration
Act, an unregistered document can also be
admitted into evidence for a collateral
fact/collateral purpose, let us now look at
the meaning of "collateral purpose" and then
ascertain whether Clause 9 of the lease
agreement can be looked into for such
collateral purpose. In Haran Chandra
Chakrvarti Vs. Kaliprasanna Sarkar [AIR 1932
Cal 83(2)], it was held that the terms of a
compulsorily registrable instrument are
nothing less than a transaction affecting
the property comprised in it. It was also
held that to use such an instrument for the
purpose of proving such a term would not be
using it for a collateral purpose and that
29
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 30 of 45
the question as to who is the tenant and on
what terms he has been created a tenant are
not collateral facts but they are important
terms of the contract of tenancy, which
cannot be proved by admission of an
unregistered lease-deed into evidence.
18. The High Court in the impugned Judgment
relied on a decision of the Allahabad High
Court in the case of Ratan Lal & ors. Vs.
Harisankar & Ors. [AIR 1980 Allahabad 180]
to hold that since the appellant wanted to
extinguish the right of the respondent with
the help of the unregistered tenancy, the
same was not a collateral purpose. In Ratan
lal’s case [supra], while discussing the
meaning of the term "Collateral Purpose",
the High Court had observed as follows :-
"The second contention was that
the partition deed, even if it was
not registered could certainly be
looked into for a collateral
purpose, but the collateral
purpose has a limited scope and
30
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 31 of 45
meaning. It cannot be used for the
purpose of saying that the deed
created or declared or assigned or
limited or extinguish the right to
immovable property ..........term
collateral purpose would not
permit the party to establish any
of these acts from the deed."
19. In the case of Bajaj Auto Limited vs.
Behari Lal Kohli [AIR 1989 SC 1806] , this
Court observed that if a document is
inadmissible for non-registration, all its
terms are inadmissible including the one
dealing with landlord’s permission to his
tenant to sub-let. It was also held in that
decision that if a decree purporting to
create a lease is inadmissible in evidence
for want of registration, none of the terms
of the lease can be admitted in evidence and
that to use a document for the purpose of
proving an important clause in the lease is
not using it as a collateral purpose.
31
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 32 of 45
Again this court in Rai Chand Jain Vs.
Chandra Kanta Khosla [AIR 1991 SC 747]
reiterated the above and observed in
paragraph 10 as under : -
".......the lease deed Ex. P1 dated
19th May, 1978 executed both by
the appellant and the respondent
i.e. the landlady and the tenant,
Rai Chand Jain, though
unregistered can be considered for
collateral purposes and as such
the findings of the Appellate
Authority to the effect that the
said deed cannot be used for
collateral purposes namely to show
that the purpose was to lease out
the demised premises for
residential purposes of the tenant
only is not at all legally
correct. It is well settled that
unregistered lease executed by
both the parties can be looked
into for collateral purposes. In
the instant case the purpose of
the lease is evident from the deed
itself which is as follows: "The
lessor hereby demises House No.
382, Sector 30-A, Chandigarh, to
lessee for residential purposes
only". This clearly evinces that
the property in question was let
out to the tenant for his
residence only...."
32
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 33 of 45
20. In the case of Rana Vidya Bhushan Singh
Vs. Ratiram [1969 (1) UJ 86 (SC)], the
following has been laid down:
"A document required by law to be
registered, if unregistered, is
inadmissible as evidence of a
transaction affecting immovable
property, but it may be admitted
as evidence of collateral facts,
or for any collateral purpose,
that is for any purpose other than
that of creating, declaring,
assigning, limiting or
extinguishing a right to immovable
property. As stated by Mulla in
his Indian Registration Act, 7th
En., at p. 189 :
"The High Courts of Calcutta,
Bombay, Allahabad, Madras, Patna,
Lahore, Assam, Nagpur, Pepsu,
Rajasthan, Orissa, Rangoon and
Jammu & Kashmir; the former Chief
Court of Oudh; the Judicial
Commissioner’s Court of Peshawar,
Ajmer and Himachal Pradesh and the
Supreme Court have held that a
document which requires
registration under Section 17 and
which is not admissible for want
of registration to prove a gift or
mortgage or sale or lease is
nevertheless admissible to prove
the character of the possession of
the person who holds under it."
33
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 34 of 45
21. From the principles laid down in the
various decisions of this Court and the High
Courts, as referred to hereinabove, it is
evident that :-
1. A document required to be registered is
not admissible into evidence under Section
49 of the Registration Act.
2. Such unregistered document can however be
used as an evidence of collateral purpose
as provided in the Proviso to Section 49
of the Registration Act.
3. A collateral transaction must be
independent of, or divisible from, the
transaction to effect which the law
required registration.
4. A collateral transaction must be a
transaction not itself required to be
effected by a registered document, that
is, a transaction creating, etc. any
right, title or interest in immoveable
34
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 35 of 45
property of the value of one hundred
rupees and upwards.
5. If a document is inadmissible in evidence
for want of registration, none of its
terms can be admitted in evidence and that
to use a document for the purpose of
proving an important clause would not be
using it as a collateral purpose.
22. In our view, the particular clause in
the lease agreement in question cannot be
called a collateral purpose. As noted
earlier, it is the case of the appellant
that the suit premises was let out only for
the particular named officer of the
respondent and accordingly, after the same
was vacated by the said officer, the
respondent was not entitled to allot it to
any other employee and was therefore, liable
to be evicted which, in our view, was an
important term forming part of the lease
agreement. Therefore, such a Clause,
35
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 36 of 45
namely, Clause 9 of the Lease Agreement in
this case, cannot be looked into even for
collateral purposes to come to a conclusion
that the respondent was liable to be evicted
because of violation of Clause 9 of the
Lease Agreement. That being the position,
we are unable to hold that Clause 9 of the
Lease Agreement, which is admittedly
unregistered, can be looked into for the
purpose of evicting the respondent from the
suit premises only because the respondent
was not entitled to induct any other person
other than the named officer in the same.
23. Before we part with this Judgment, let
us deal with another ground, which the High
Court had also taken into consideration.
This is with regard to the violation of
provisions of Section 108 (o) of the
Transfer of Property Act. Section 108 (o)
clearly provides that the Lessee must not
36
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 37 of 45
use or permit another to use the property
for a purpose other than that for which it
was let out or leased. Relying on this
provision, the learned counsel for the
appellant argued that since the purpose of
the lease was for the use and occupation of
one of the officers of the respondent, after
the said officer had vacated the suit
premises, the respondent, by refusing to
handover the possession of the suit premises
to the appellant and by giving the same to
another officer, had violated the provisions
of Section 108 (o) of the Transfer of
Property Act. Before we decide this
question, it is necessary for us to
reproduce the finding of the High Court on
this aspect, which is as follows: -
"....Clause (O) of Section 108 of
the T.P. Act touches the question
of user. This clause requires the
lessee to use the property as a
man of ordinary prudence would use
his property and not to use the
property, for any other purpose,
for which it is leased. In the
37
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 38 of 45
instant case, from the tenancy
agreement, what can be seen as a
collateral evidence is the purpose
of the tenancy and such purpose
clearly is for residence.
Therefore, there is no question of
violation of Clause (o) of Section
108 of the T.P. Act by the
tenant/company in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
24. We have carefully examined the aforesaid
finding of the High Court on the question of
violation of Section 108 (o) of the Transfer
of Property Act. In our view, the High Court
was justified in coming to a conclusion that
since this was not a case of ‘Change of
User’ within the meaning of Section 108 (o)
of the Transfer of Property Act, it could
not be held that the appellant had violated
the provisions of Section 108 (o) of the
Transfer of Property Act. Section 108(o)
requires the lessee to use the property as a
man of ordinary prudence would use his
property and not to use it for a purpose
different to that for which it was leased.
38
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 39 of 45
It is true that under Section 108 (o) of the
Transfer of Property Act, ‘use of the
property for the purpose other than that for
which it was leased i.e. ‘Change of User’ is
not permitted. Therefore, we have to
consider whether in the backdrop of the
facts of this case, violation of Clause 9 of
the lease agreement, even if it is held that
it can be looked into for collateral
purposes, would be ‘Change of User’ or not.
In other words, we have to find whether the
expression ‘change of user’ would cover a
situation wherein the property is let out
for a particular named officer and for none
else and despite this condition, the same is
given to some one else, or would it cover
and be limited to the cases where property
is leased out for a residential or non-
residential purpose or for a particular
business and despite such express
conditions, the property is used for the
purpose other than the specified. We are of
39
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 40 of 45
the view that letting out or leasing out the
property for a particular named officer
cannot be the ‘purpose’ of letting. The
purpose of letting out would be residential
or non-residential or for a particular
business etc.
25. The learned counsel for the appellant
placed strong reliance on the decisions of
this court in Dashrath Baburao Sangale and
others Vs. Kashimath Bhaskar Data [AIR 1993 SC
2646] and M. Arul Jothi and another Vs. Lajja
Bal (deceased) and another [AIR 2000 SC 1122]
to suggest that the respondent had violated
Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property
Act. After carefully examining the aforesaid
decisions of this Court, we do not find any
support from the said decisions for the
purpose of holding that the present case is
covered by the expression ‘Change of User’ as
used in Section 108(o) of the Transfer of
40
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 41 of 45
Property Act. In Dashrath Baburao
Sangale’s case [supra], the premises was let
out to the tenant for sugarcane juice business
whereas the tenant was using the premises for
selling cloth and readymade clothes and on
this ground, it was held that he was liable to
be evicted on account of ‘change of user’.
Similarly, in M. Arul Jothi’s case [supra],
the tenant was held liable for eviction when
the shop rented to him for carrying on the
business of radios, cycles, fans, clocks and
steel furniture was converted into a grocery
store despite a specific clause in the rent
agreement forbidding the same.
26. Therefore, in the present case, we are of
the view that although the premises was
leased out exclusively for the named
officer of the respondent, the fact that
it was subsequently used for the
residence of some other officer of the
respondent would not constitute ‘change
41
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 42 of 45
of user’ so as to be hit by Section 108
(o) of the Transfer of Property Act.
27. Before we part with this judgment, we may
deal with a short submission of Mr.
Mukherjee that since the lease agreement
in question was simplicitor a tenancy
agreement, which is not compulsorily
registrable, the respondent was liable to
be evicted even under the provisions of
the Act. We are unable to agree with this
contention of Mr. Mukherjee for the
simple reason that for a decree to be
passed under the Act, the landlord has to
plead and prove one of the grounds
mentioned in Section 13 of the Act. Even
if we accept that the appellant had made
out a case under Section 13(1b) of the
Act to the extent that the respondent was
liable to be evicted under Section 108(o)
of the Transfer of Property Act, in view
of our findings made hereinabove on that
42
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 43 of 45
aspect, the appellant is not entitled to
a decree of eviction under the Act.
28. In view of our discussions made
hereinabove, we are, therefore, of the view
that Clause 9 of the Agreement, which
requires the respondent to use the suit
premises only for its particular named
officer, can not be looked into even for
collateral purposes and that the decision of
this court in Smt. Juthika Mullick’s case
[supra] would not be of any help to the
appellant because in that case, the lease
deed was registered.
29.Secondly, we are of the view that
although the suit premises was leased out
exclusively for the named officer of the
respondent, the fact that the respondent
sought to use it for some other officer
would not constitute "Change of User"
within the meaning of Section 108(o) of
43
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 44 of 45
the Transfer of Property Act and,
therefore, the respondent cannot be
evicted for violation of the provisions of
Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property
Act.
30.No other point was raised by the learned
counsel for the appellant and accordingly,
we do not find any merit in this appeal
and the appeal is therefore dismissed.
31.Since the suits have been dismissed and
no argument was advanced in respect of the
other appeal i.e. the appeal in respect of
the injunction suit, the said appeal shall
also stand dismissed.
32. Since the appeals have been dismissed,
all the interlocutory applications, if any,
now pending before this Court have become
infructuous and accordingly, they are
44
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 45 of 45
disposed of as infructuous. There will be
no order as to costs.
.............................................J.
[A.K.MATHUR]
New Delhi; .............................................J.
May 12, 2008 [TARUN CHATTERJEE]
45