TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (10) TMI 542
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion) Control Act, 1982 (for short 'the Bihar Act'). During pendency of the suit for eviction, ownership of the building has again been transferred and the present respondent has come into the field. After he got himself impleaded as a plaintiff he Jettisoned most of the grounds put forth in the suit far eviction and confined to the surviving ground that, the period of tenancy has expired. From the trial court up to the High Court the landlord succeeded on the said ground. This Special Leave Petition has been filed in challenge of the aforesaid decree of eviction as confirmed by the High Court. Under Section 11(1)(e) of the Bihar Act a landlord has the right to evict his tenant from a building in execution, of a decree passed on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e rate of ₹ 90/-per month. He further admitted that the said lease was due to expire on 4-10-l'980 but before the expiry of the lease the defendant No.l gave notice to the landlord who extended the lease for a further period of five years and extension was granted on 21-6-1980 with the mutual consent of the parties on the same rate of rent. XXX XXX XXX XXX So creation of fixed term tenancy is admitted by the defendant No.l and his plea for extension of the lease is palpably false. I do not find that any cogent evidence has been adduced this point by the defendant No.l. It is clear that the objection As to validity of the lease had been raised for the first time during the argument in the lower court." Learned Single Judge o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndlord cannot rely on the said ground for seeking a decree of eviction. Ptetitioner-tenant cannot now depart from the factual position which he has admitted in the trial court as well as before the first appellate Court that he had executed a registered deed of Kabuliyat on 4-101975 (Ext.2) in favour of Zafir Ahmad (the predecessor in title of the present landlord) agreeing to vacate the premises on the expiry of a period of 5 years. But the contention is that as the said instrument was not signed by both the landlord and the tenant, there was no valid lease created for a specified period. The contention, in other words, is that joint execution of a lease by both the lessor and lessee is sine qua non for creation of a valid lease. Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....view of Section 17 of the Registration Act either for proving the tennis of the lease or otherwise. "vide Satish Chand Makhan & ors. vs. Govardhan Das Byas & Ors. (AIR 1984 SC 143) and Budh Ram vs. Railla Ram, (AIR 1987 SC 2078). But as for third paragraph of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act the only requirement is that execution of the lease through a registered instrument shall be a joint endeavour of both lessor and lessen. The said paragraph in the section was introduced by the Transfer of Property (Amendment) Act, 1929 (Act XX of 1929). The reason for introducing the aforesaid paragraph in the said section was to settle the conflict of opinion expressed by different High Courts regarding the validity of a lease made th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld be reduced to writing. Sometime one party alone would affix the signature on it and delver it to the other party. Sometimes both parties would Affix their signature on the instrument. If the document is required by law to be registered, both parties can be involved in the process without perhaps obtaining the signatures of one of them. In all such instances the instrument can be said to have been executed by both parties thereto. If the instrument is signed by both parties it is presumptive of the fact that both of them have executed it, of course it is only rebuttable presumption. Similarly if an instrument is signed by only one party it does not mean that both parties have net executed it together. Whether both parties have executed t....