Perpetual tenancy claims need clear written proof; section 53-A fails without signed landlord contract, and monthly tenancy ends by notice.

A claimed restriction on ejectment, including a tenancy in perpetuity, was not proved because the correspondence showed no clear acceptance by the landlord and the tenant's reply amounted to a counter-offer. Such a permanent lease, if intended, required a written and registered instrument signed by the lessor; a mere kabuliyat was insufficient. Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act gave no protection because no signed written contract established the alleged terms with reasonable certainty. In the absence of a proved contract to the contrary, the monthly tenancy was validly terminated by notice under section 106. The claim for credit for municipal taxes and repairs was not entertained, and the decree for ejectment and arrears of rent was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the alleged condition that the tenant would not be liable to ejectment so long as rent was paid regularly was proved and enforceable; whether the tenant could rely on section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to resist ejectment; whether the notice to quit was invalid under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; and whether any credit was required to be given for municipal taxes and repairs.

Analysis: The correspondence showed that the landlord's offer was not accepted in full and the tenant's reply introduced fresh terms, making it a counter-offer rather than an acceptance. The finding of fact was that the landlord never accepted the asserted condition creating a tenancy in perpetuity, and such a term, if true, would in substance amount to a permanent lease requiring a written and registered instrument. A mere kabuliyat by the tenant was insufficient. Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 did not assist the tenant because there was no written contract signed by the landlord from which the alleged terms could be ascertained with reasonable certainty. The notice was held valid because, in the absence of any proved contract to the contrary, a monthly tenancy was governed by section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the landlord could terminate it by the requisite notice expiring with the tenancy month. The claim for taxes and repairs was not entertained because it had not been properly raised below and did not require a preliminary decree under Order 20, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Conclusion: The alleged perpetual tenancy was not established, section 53-A gave no protection, the notice to quit was valid, and the tenant was not entitled to additional credits for taxes or repairs.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the decree for ejectment and arrears of rent was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A claimed lease in perpetuity or restriction on the landlord's right to eject must be proved by a clear written and, where required, registered contract signed by the lessor; absent such proof, section 53-A cannot be invoked and a monthly tenancy remains terminable under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

---