(Civil Appeal No. 2617 of 2020) (arising out of SLP (C) no. 9866 of 2010
Section 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949; Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882
The appellant was the landlord of the land which respondent took for rent for running his business. The agreement was done and both the parties were satisfied. Appellant file the application for eviction of the tenant along with the arrears of the Rent. And house tax and interest on arrears of rent as the rent was not paid by the tenant. Tenant refused for all the conditions mentioned in the agreement and stated that he was paying the rent of Rs. 1000/- till 2006 but landlord refused to take the rent. An appeal was filed against the order of the Rent Controller. The Appellate Court after holding that document was compulsorily registrable that the clause regarding the increase cannot be relied on by the judgement of the Rent Controller was accordingly set aside and the appeal was allowed. The appellant was aggrieved and thus filed the appeal in the HC. The HC approved the Appeal.
Ram Kumar Das v. Jagdish Chandra Deo, Dhabal Deb and Anr, AIR 1952 SC 23: the court held that when there is no period agreed upon between the parties, duration has to be determined by referring to the purpose and object with which the tenancy is created.
Kashi Nath and Ors. v. Abdur Rahman Khan and Ors., AIR 18922 All. 54.: HC considered an agreement where the defendant had contracted to pay eight annas a year as a rent of the site.
Mengh Raj v. Nand Lal & Ors., AIR 1939 Lah. 558: In the above case the lease rate of rent was payable per mensem. The Court has allowed appeal under Registration Act.
The appeal was allowed. The judgement and decree of the Rent controller directing eviction of the tenant resorted and no costs were made.
Section 7, 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988
Sections 394, 460 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860