Unregistered lease deeds cannot enforce contractual notice terms, and termination notice is presumed served when sent to the correct address.

Unregistered lease deeds for a term exceeding one year could not be used to enforce the contractual tenancy period or three-month notice clause, so the tenancy was treated as month-to-month and terminable under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Notice sent by registered post and courier to the suit premises and registered office attracted the statutory presumption of service, which was not rebutted, so termination was validly served. Once the tenancy ended, the plaintiffs were entitled to possession and proved arrears of rent, while mesne profits were assessed at the last admitted contractual rent rather than the higher claimed market rate.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the unregistered lease deeds could be relied upon to enforce the stipulated term of tenancy and notice period, and whether the tenancy was therefore terminable only by the contractual notice period; (ii) whether the notice terminating the tenancy was duly served and satisfied the requirement of law; (iii) whether the plaintiffs were entitled to possession, arrears of rent and mesne profits, and at what rate.

Issue (i): Whether the unregistered lease deeds could be relied upon to enforce the stipulated term of tenancy and notice period, and whether the tenancy was therefore terminable only by the contractual notice period.

Analysis: A lease for a term exceeding one year required compulsory registration. Since the lease deed and supplementary agreement were unregistered, they could not create or preserve the contractual tenancy for the stipulated term. The proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act permits an unregistered document only for a collateral transaction, but the notice period and term of tenancy are integral parts of the lease and not collateral matters. The contractual clause prescribing three months' notice could not, therefore, be enforced. In the circumstances, the tenancy was treated as a month-to-month tenancy terminable under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Conclusion: The contractual notice period was not enforceable, and the tenancy was terminable under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the notice terminating the tenancy was duly served and satisfied the requirement of law.

Analysis: The notice was sent by registered post and courier to the suit premises and the registered office of the defendant, but was returned with endorsements indicating that the premises were locked or that the addressee had left. The statutory presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act applied. A party cannot defeat service by remaining unavailable or by not maintaining an address for receipt of notices. In the absence of any contest by the defendant to rebut service, the notice was treated as duly issued and served.

Conclusion: The notice of termination was validly served and complied with the legal requirement.

Issue (iii): Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to possession, arrears of rent and mesne profits, and at what rate.

Analysis: Once the tenancy stood validly terminated, the plaintiffs became entitled to recover possession and arrears of rent proved on record. As to mesne profits, the evidence did not establish the claimed market rent of Rs. 3 lakhs per month, but it did show the last admitted contractual rent after escalation. The court therefore fixed damages for use and occupation at the last payable rent rather than at the claimed higher market rate.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs were entitled to possession and arrears of rent, and mesne profits were payable at Rs. 1,17,300 per month from the date of filing of the suit until delivery of possession.

Final Conclusion: The suit succeeded substantially: the tenancy was held to be validly terminated, the plaintiffs obtained possession and arrears of rent, and damages were awarded at the last proved rent rather than the higher claimed rate.

Ratio Decidendi: An unregistered lease deed cannot be used to enforce an essential term governing the duration or termination of tenancy, and where service of termination notice is attempted by registered post to the correct address, statutory presumption of service applies unless rebutted.

---