M/S. K.B. SAHA & SONS PVT. LTD. versus M/S. DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT LTD.

M/S. K.B. SAHA & SONS PVT. LTD. versus M/S. DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT LTD.

Clause 9 in the unregistered lease agreement, regarding occupancy by a named officer, is an important term and not a collateral purpose; it cannot be relied upon, even as collateral evidence, for eviction, as the agreement is inadmissible. Leasing to a different officer of the respondent does not constitute 'change of user' under s.108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act. For eviction under the Act, the landlord must establish grounds under s.13, which is not established here.

Parties
Appellant: M/S. K.B. Saha & Sons Pvt. Ltd.; Respondent: M/S. Development Consultant Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Registration of Lease Deeds, Protection of Tenant, Change of User, Collateral Purpose, Eviction Under Tenancy Laws
Property Law Tenancy Law Registration of Lease Deeds Protection of Tenant Change of User Collateral Purpose Eviction Under Tenancy Laws

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M/S. K.B. Saha & Sons Pvt. Ltd.

Appellant

M/S. Development Consultant Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an unregistered lease agreement can be admitted in evidence
  2. 2 Whether Clause 9 of the unregistered lease agreement can be relied upon for eviction
  3. 3 Whether 'change of user' occurred under s.108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 9 in the unregistered lease agreement, regarding occupancy by a named officer, is an important term and not a collateral purpose; it cannot be relied upon, even as collateral evidence, for eviction, as the agreement is inadmissible. Leasing to a different officer of the respondent does not constitute 'change of user' under s.108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act. For eviction under the Act, the landlord must establish grounds under s.13, which is not established here.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • All interlocutory applications disposed as infructuous.
  • No order as to costs.