Unregistered tenancy document and permanent tenancy inference: legal principles on admissibility, res judicata, and second-appeal review.

An unregistered instrument that is in substance a lease or counterpart of a lease cannot be received in evidence to prove tenancy terms. The prior rent-enhancement decree did not operate as res judicata on whether the tenancy was permanent, because the earlier proceedings did not finally and bindingly determine that issue between the parties. The character of a tenancy as permanent or precarious is a legal inference from proved facts, so it may be examined in second appeal where the issue is not a pure question of fact. On the facts considered, permanent tenancy was not established.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an unregistered declaration purporting to record the terms of tenancy was admissible in evidence; (ii) whether the earlier rent-enhancement decree operated as res judicata on the nature of the tenancy; (iii) whether the tenancy was permanent and whether that question could be examined in second appeal.

Issue (i): Whether an unregistered declaration purporting to record the terms of tenancy was admissible in evidence.

Analysis: A document which is in substance a lease or counterpart of a lease and which ought to have been registered cannot be received in evidence if unregistered. The declaration tendered to prove the tenancy terms fell within that rule and was therefore excluded.

Conclusion: The unregistered declaration was inadmissible in evidence.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier rent-enhancement decree operated as res judicata on the nature of the tenancy.

Analysis: The prior proceedings did not finally determine the permanent character of the tenancy in a manner binding on both parties. The earlier judicial expression on that point had been withdrawn in substance when the review was refused, and the decree for enhancement of rent could not be treated as an adjudication that the tenancy was not permanent. Equally, the refusal of review and the unappealed enhancement decree did not establish a permanent tenancy in favour of the appellants.

Conclusion: The earlier decree did not create res judicata on the issue of permanent tenancy.

Issue (iii): Whether the tenancy was permanent and whether that question could be examined in second appeal.

Analysis: The proper legal effect of proved facts is a question of law, and the character of a tenancy as permanent or precarious is a legal inference from facts rather than a pure finding of fact. The second appellate court was therefore competent to examine the question. On the evidence, including the sale deed, the pleadings in the earlier suit, and the continued payment of enhanced rent, the claim of permanent tenancy was not established.

Conclusion: The tenancy was not proved to be permanent, and the High Court was entitled to decide the issue in second appeal.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, the decree in favour of the respondent was maintained, and the appellants were not entitled to claim a permanent inheritable tenancy in the land.

Ratio Decidendi: An unregistered instrument required to be registered is inadmissible to prove tenancy terms, and the nature of a tenancy as permanent or precarious is a legal inference from facts that may be examined in second appeal where the issue is not a pure question of fact.

---