RAM KUMAR DAS versus JAGADISH CHANDRA DEB DHABAL DEB AND ANOTHER

RAM KUMAR DAS versus JAGADISH CHANDRA DEB DHABAL DEB AND ANOTHER

Where there was no operative lease for ten years due to absence of a valid registered instrument, but the defendant remained in possession with the owner's permission and paid rent, a tenancy can be inferred. Given the purpose of the tenancy (building structures), section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act applies and presumes a month-to-month tenancy unless a valid contract to the contrary is shown. Payment of annual rent alone in two years does not create a yearly tenancy in the absence of a valid contract or instrument. The defendant was a monthly tenant from 1924 and the suit is not time-barred.

Parties
Appellant: Ram Kumar Das; Respondent: Jagdish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deb and Another
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
26 November 1951
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From a Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Patna Dated 5th November, 1948
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Leases, Transfer of Property, Tenancy, Limitation, Eviction
Property Law Leases Transfer of Property Tenancy Limitation Eviction

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ram Kumar Das

Appellant

Jagdish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deb and Another

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From a Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Patna Dated 5th November, 1948

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What was the nature of the tenancy created by acceptance of rent by the Receiver in 1925?
  2. 2 Whether the defendant became a monthly tenant under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act?
  3. 3 Whether the suit was barred by limitation under Article 139 of the Indian Limitation Act?

Ratio Decidendi

Where there was no operative lease for ten years due to absence of a valid registered instrument, but the defendant remained in possession with the owner's permission and paid rent, a tenancy can be inferred. Given the purpose of the tenancy (building structures), section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act applies and presumes a month-to-month tenancy unless a valid contract to the contrary is shown. Payment of annual rent alone in two years does not create a yearly tenancy in the absence of a valid contract or instrument. The defendant was a monthly tenant from 1924 and the suit is not time-barred.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Suit for recovery of possession by plaintiff is decreed.
  • Defendant to pay costs.