As per law laid down by this Court in Ram Kumar Das(supra) there shall be a presumption that the tenancy in the
present case is monthly tenancy. When the clauses of
rent note are cumulatively read, the intention of the
tenant is more than clear that tenancy was only
monthly tenancy, which could have been terminated on
default of payment of rent by 5th day of any month or
by notice of one month. The rent deed did not confer
any right to tenant to continue in the tenancy for a
period of more than one year nor it can be said that
tenancy was created for a period of more than one
year. Clause (9), which noticed the promise of the
tenant of payment of rent by increasing 10% each year
was a promise contingent on tenancy being continued
beyond one year but cannot make the tenancy year to
year or tenancy for a period of more than one year.
Present was a case of tenancy for which no period was
specified and looking to all the clauses
cumulatively, we find that the rent note was not such
kind of rent note, which requires compulsory
registration under Section 17(1)(d).
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVI L APPEA L NO. 2617 O F 2020
SIRI CHAND (DECEASED) THR. LRS. Vs SURINDER SINGH .
ASHO K BHUSHAN, J.
Dated:June 17, 2020.
