Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.
1. The short point that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the document relied upon by the plaintiff to evict the tenants, who are the petitioners in this petition, is admissible in evidence or not
2. The relevant portions of the document, Exhibit A, which is a cooly-chit, are as follows:
As I have agreed to take from you for my residence the thatched shed, consisting of 30 carpenter's koles all round, with raised mud flooring and walls, with bamboo roofing with cocoanut rafters for a rooms and terraced with mango planks with cocoanut-door frames in eastern portion of your Kakkarat Paramba, I have agreed to pay you an yearly rent of Rs. 6 and I shall myself repair and put up the thatched roofing every year, and pay you a rent of 8 annas per month and get receipt. I shall surrender the shed whenever you require the same without causing any loss whatever.
3. Mr. Ramakrishna Iyer, appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that the lease is one, which comes within the scope of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, and is therefore, registrable if it is to be admitted in evidence. His point is that it creates an yearly tenancy with an yearly rent reserved. But the method of payment alone has been provided to be in instalments of 8 annas each month. He would, however, ignore the last sentence in the deed, namely, 'I shall surrender the shed whenever you require the same without causing any loss whatever.' This, he argues, has reference only to the mode of determination of the tenancy and has nothing to do with the actual creation of the tenancy, which finds place in the earlier part of the document. He has relied on a decision in Threlfall Ex Parte Queen Benefit Building Society, In re (1880) 16 Ch. 274 of the Court of Appeal in support of his argument, and has also invited my attention to the pssage which is found at page 288 of Woodfall on Landlord and Tenant, 1939 edition which quotes with approval the decision of the Court of Appeal above quoted. In addition to this he has also relied upon a decision in Ata Muhammad v. Skankar Das (1925) I.L.R. 6 Lah. 319 : A.I.R. 1925 Lah. 491. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has further relied upon a decision in Nathu Lal v. Dal Chand : AIR1934All902 , and a decision in Adinath. Bhatta Charjee v. Krishna Chandra : AIR1934Cal474 , and passages in Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. XX. But the latter decisions do not, in my opinion, seem to be relevant for the issue involved in this petition.
4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent contends that though the agreement is to pay yearly rent of Rs. 6 and to repair the house, the overriding clause in the agreement is that the tenant shall surrender the shed whenever the landlord demands the same without causing any loss whatsoever, and this overriding clause does not make the tenancy agreement to fall within the scope of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, and therefore it is not registrable as such and the lower Court was right in admitting the same in evidence. The learned Counsel for the respondent has relied upon a series of decisions of the Bomaby and Madras High Courts, as also a decision of the Lahore High Court. They are Jagjivandas Javherdas v. Narayan I.L.R.(1884) 8 Bom. 493 Ratnasabhapathi v. Venkatachalam I.L.R.(1891) Mad. 271, Aishan v. Municipal Committee 92 Ind.Cas. 526 (2), Pandu Mahipat v. Shivashankardas Skivlaldas (1928) 118 I.G. 702, Mengh Raj v. Nand Lal A.I.R. 1939 Lah. 558, and the English decision relied upon by the respondent is Morton v. Woods (1868) 3 Q.B. Cases 658.
5. Taking the tenor of the document as a whole, I do not think that I can agree with the contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Though an yearly rent is to be payable under the document, and the house has to be repaired every year, as long as it remains in the occupation of the tenants, and though the mode of payment is just at the rate of 8 annas per month, still the fact remains that whenever the landlord demands the surrender of the house, the tenants have no option but to quit and deliver vacant possession, without causing any loss whatsoever. These terms, in my view, do not create a tenancy that could be said to come within the meaning of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act. They amount only to a tenancy at will not necessitating a registered document.
6. I am inclined to accept the interpretation, put by the learned Judges in the citations relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent. Similar language was used in the lease deeds, which came up for consideration in those cases and these cases are on all fours with the present one under revision.
7. In this view, the lower Court was right and the document is admissible in evidence, though not registered. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.