Skip to content


Srimati Sari Alias Saradamayi Debi, Widow of Late NaraIn Chandra Singh Vs. Srimati Sailabala Dasi, Wife of Broja Gopal Roy - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in59Ind.Cas.788
AppellantSrimati Sari Alias Saradamayi Debi, Widow of Late NaraIn Chandra Singh
RespondentSrimati Sailabala Dasi, Wife of Broja Gopal Roy
Excerpt:
landlord and tenant - tenancy created by registered instrument--surrender, oral, validity of--yearly payment of rent, whether conclusive evidence of annual tenancy--transfer of property act (iv of 1882), section 107. - .....we do not think that the surrender was invalid.2. the next contention is that the tenancy was a yearly tenancy because a yearly rent was paid and that, therefore, the defendant was entitled to six months' notice to quit.3. but the fact of an annual rent being reserved, though it may raise a presumption, is not conclusive to show that it was a yearly tenancy and, secondly, the lease having some into existence after the transfer of property act, there could not be a tenancy reserving a yearly rent having regard to the provisions of section 107, without a registered instrument. the lease was not for agricultural or manufacturing purposes. it must, therefore, be deemed to be a tenancy from month to month. notice to quit given in the case, therefore, was sufficient.4. the appeal must.....
Judgment:

1. The First contention raised in this appeal is that the oral surrender is invalid because the original tenancy was created by a registered lease. But it is found that the tenant gave up his lease-hold right and that it was accepted and acted upon by the landlord. The tenant has raised no objection. In the circumstances, we do not think that the surrender was invalid.

2. The next contention is that the tenancy was a yearly tenancy because a yearly rent was paid and that, therefore, the defendant was entitled to six months' notice to quit.

3. But the fact of an annual rent being reserved, though it may raise a presumption, is not conclusive to show that it was a yearly tenancy and, secondly, the lease having some into existence after the Transfer of Property Act, there could not be a tenancy reserving a yearly rent having regard to the provisions of Section 107, without a registered instrument. The lease was not for agricultural or manufacturing purposes. It must, therefore, be deemed to be a tenancy from month to month. Notice to quit given in the case, therefore, was sufficient.

4. The appeal must accordingly be dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //