CASE COMMENT SHYAM LAL VS. DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA GARIB DASS By- Korra Anand Nayak, Shweta Nimwal & Rahul Sangwan

CASE COMMENT

SHYAM LAL VS. DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA GARIB DASS

Authored By- Korra Anand Nayak

NALSAR University of Law

Co-Authored By- Shweta Nimwal

 NALSAR University of Law

Co-Authored By- Rahul Sangwan

 M.D.U, Centre for Professional and Allied Studies

INTRODUCTION

The authors selected this case because this judgment is unique in its field. This judgment has different effect on different states because of different state laws. The authors tried to analyze the case and consequences of the judgment in the paper. The Supreme Court in this case gave judgment in favor of tenant and most of our rental control laws are also in favor of tenant. The authors tried to analyze various rights and duties of tenants and landlords in order to understand the reasoning of the Supreme Court.

SUMMARY OF THE CASE

SHYAM LAL VS. DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA GARIB DASS[1]

 In this case landlord leased land for very longtime and this lease happened twice. One from 1986 to 1994 and another from 1996 to 2005, this second one is based on the principle of holding over new tenancy is formed where implied consent of the landlord is presumed legally. After the expiry of lease agreement tenant became statutory tenant and his tenancy is protected under provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953.[2] (hereinafter referred as The 1953 Act) and Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887[3] (hereinafter referred as the 1887 Act).

This particular lease is not registered which makes the lease deed inadmissible as evidence. In the present case self-cultivating tenant is the appellant (plaintiff) and landlord is the respondent. This is the case of agriculture tenancy. The appellant filed a suit for injunction seeking restraint of landlord on the lease premises. The landlord who is the respondent filed cross objection for injunction seeking the vacation of tenant from lease premises on the ground that deemed period of lease expired and appellant ceases to be tenant. Trial Court delivered judgment in favor of landlord and stated that tenant in possession of legal premises after expiry of lease agreement is a trespasser and the rent which tenant pays is damages for violating right of landlord. The High Court upheld the judgment of Trial Court. The appellant appealed in the Supreme Court.

These following three questions were dealt in the present case by the Supreme Court:

1. Whether after the expiry of fixed term of tenancy in case of agriculture lease, the person occupying the lease premises ceases to be tenant after the termination of tenancy under the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953.

2. Whether the tenant of agriculture land can be evicted by suit for mandatory injunction or by establishing grounds for eviction under the provisions of the 1953 Act.

3. Whether lease deed of agriculture land is admissible as evidence in absence of registered instrument under Section 107 of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882[4] (hereinafter referred as TOPA, 1882) and Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.[5]

This judgment was pronounced by 3 Judge Bench of Supreme Court. In this case it was held that self-cultivating tenant who is in the possession of the leased premises beyond lease period cannot be evicted by the landlord without establishing any grounds specified under section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953.

COMMENT AND ANALYSIS OF CASE

Section 116 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred as TOPA, 1882) confers legitimacy to the possession of leased premises by the tenant even after the termination of lease period and gives the tenant status of statutory tenant. The statutory tenant is protected from eviction by the landlord as envisaged by the provisions of the 1953 Act.  The transfer of Property Act, 1882 makes clear by its opening provision that Act is not applicable to the state of Punjab (including Haryana). Section 54, 107 and 123 of TOPA, 1882 are the only sections applicable to state of Punjab (includes Haryana) because these are the sections that are made applicable by publishing in the Punjab Government official gazette notification. Section 117 of TOPA, 1882 is not made applicable to the state of Punjab by any notification. Section 117 of TOPA, 1882 which make provisions under chapter V makes Section 107 inapplicable to agriculture leases. Section 117 of TOPA, 1882 was not made applicable to the state of Punjab by any official Gazette notifications. This inapplicability of Section 117 to the state of Punjab (including Haryana) lead to application of provisions of Section 107 of TOPA, 1882 to all the leases of immovable property including agriculture leases with full force and vigor. Section 107 mandates all the annual leases of immovable property to be registered.[6]

The 1953 Act read with relevant provisions of the 1887 Act doesn’t include tenant whose lease period has expired. The tenant will remain in the possession of lease premises even after the termination of the lease period with same status on the principle of holding over. This continuance of possession of lease premises by the tenant even after expiry of deemed lease period is valid under section 106 of TOPA, 1882. Under Section 116 of TOPA, 1882 tenant is entitled to protection from eviction.

Anthony v. K.C. Ittoop & Sons & Ors[7], this is the case of non-agricultural lease in which it was legally presumed that oral lease was for year to year under Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. In the present case lease being agriculture lease the same can be deemed to apply as year to year lease agreement in view of provisions of Section 106 of TOPA, 1882.[8]

The agriculture lease deed which is unregistered is not admissible as evidence in the Court of law. In the present case lease is not registered and section 117 of TOPA, 1882 is not applicable to the state of Punjab, in view of provisions of Section 17 and Section 49 of The Registration Act,1908 read with Section 107 of TOPA, 1882 terms of the lease agreement are not admissible as evidence. This inadmissibility of lease deed will not allow Court to look into the deed for determining actual duration of the lease. In the present case tenancy is for agriculture purpose and agriculture lease is deemed as year to year lease deed in view of the provisions of Section 106 of TOPA, 1882.  This inadmissibility of lease deed as evidence lead to legal presumption that tenant remained in possession of lease premises beyond the legal presumptive period of lease for one year with the implied consent of the landlord. This gives the tenant the status of tenant holding over or tenant at will which gives him/her protection from eviction under the 1953 Act which mandates the landlord to establish any proof of conditions specified in section 9 of the 1953 Act before being entitled to decree of eviction. A tenant who is claiming the protection from eviction should qualify as a tenant according to the 1953 Act read with the relevant provisions of Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. The statutory tenant can only claim statutory protection and it is available only to the tenant under the Act.

Consequences of the Judgment include how the decision of the Court will effect in other states because section 117 is not applicable in State of Punjab. It is applicable in other states according to the opening provision of TOPA, 1882. TOPA, 1882 is not fully applicable to state of Punjab which made this case unique. The application of this judgment to various states will not be same because Section 117 of TOPA, 1882 removes agriculture leases from the scope of Section 107 of TOPA, 1882.  Misuse of rights by tenant and tenants may play foul with this judgment.

It is better to put a clause in the agreement which says to increase the rent after the termination of the agreement.[9] It will help tenants suffering from undue advantages by the landlords. The landlords may take undue advantage over tenants and it may lead to indebtedness of tenants. This judgment gives scope for mala fide tenants to restrict the enjoyment of rights by the landlord. This will also lead to misuse of law by the tenants for their own benefits. It takes longtime for the landlord to take back his property from tenant because failure of our Courts and enforcement issues.[10]

If tenants try to cheat their landlords then all the lease agreements will be for short period of time with various clauses dealing with termination of deemed period of lease. In this situation tenants have to face a lot of problems about short tenure of lease agreements and various restrictions for the renewal of possession of lease premises. During creating tenancy it is easy to transfer possession of property but it is very difficult for the landlord to take back his/her property from tenant because of various tenant rights. If tenant want to claim permanent occupation over lease premises then landlord should go through prolong Court process to evict tenant from lease premises, in a way restricting landlord to enjoy his/her property rights. These situations indicate that it is difficult to protect rights of landlord and landlord has to bear unnecessary costs to get back his/her property and to vacate tenant from lease premises after the termination of lease agreement.[11]

This judgment will not allow landlords to increase rents rapidly which helps tenants from escaping higher rents. There are rent control laws in India for every state to deal with rights and duties of tenant and landlord.[12]

This judgment balances the rights of tenant and landlord. In this case after the termination of lease period also landlord should establish valid grounds for eviction of tenant from lease premises because lease deed is not registered and it was not looked into for the determination of actual duration of lease period. The eviction is considered as illegal in this case because it is on the basis of legal presumption that lease is for one year with the implied consent of the landlord (principle of holding over). If the lease deed would have been registered then eviction would have been considered lawful. In case of registered deed the duration of lease according to the lease deed will be considered by the Court and landlord will be entitled to eviction of tenant from lease premises. There is an established law that eviction should be reasonable and for legal purpose.[13]

This is case of holding over in which a new tenancy is created and consent of the landlord is important. In our case Court presumed year to year lease agreement under section 106 of TOPA, 1882 and there is implied consent from the landlord.

Sukhdev Singh (Dead) through legal representatives and Ors. V. Puranand Ors[14] in this case it was held that tenant under the 1953 Act and the 1887 Act ceases to be tenant after the expiry of fixed term of tenancy and tenant is not entitled to any statutory protection. The Co-ordinate bench didn’t agree to the aforesaid view because both the acts don’t include tenant who lease period expired.[15] The 1887 Act do contemplate about eviction of tenant but because of non-obstante clause in the section 9 of the 1953 Act, it has the overriding effect over the provisions of the 1887 Act. Therefore, Court applied all the provisions properly and whole reasoning is based on provisions of law.

CONCLUSION

In order to reduce problems such as in present case agreement should be drafted properly and terms should be in consonance with their respective state laws and deed should be registered for proper enforcement of terms and conditions of the deed. The author concurs with the judgment of Supreme Court to the extent it is benefitting bona fide tenants. The effect of this judgment differs for every state because of their respective state laws. The Supreme Court aimed at striking balance between rights of tenant and landlord.

[1] 2016 (7) SCC 572, 2016 AIR (SC) 3243

[2] The Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953.

[3] Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887

[4] the transfer of property act, 1882

[5] the registration act, 1908

[6] 2016 (7) SCC 572, 2016 AIR (SC) 3243

[7] (2000) 6 SCC 394

[8] Vakilno1.com. (2019). Eviction of Tenant - No Eviction unless Grounds Seeking Eviction have been Made out- Supreme Court. [online] Available at: https://www.vakilno1.com/legal-news/eviction-of-tenant-no-eviction-unless-grounds-seeking-eviction-have-been-made-out-supreme-court.html [Accessed 26 Jan. 2019].

[9] Diwaker, R. (2019). A tenant can defend eviction by landlord - Times of India. [online] The Times of India. Available at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/a-tenant-can-defend-eviction-by-landlord/articleshow/64584652.cms [Accessed 26 Jan. 2019].

[10] Lunn, E. (2019). Landlords are wrong and tenants right? The two sides of the eviction story. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/apr/05/landlords-tenants-eviction-rent [Accessed 26 Jan. 2019].

[11] Portiqo. (2019). Rights of a tenant under the Indian law - Portiqo. [online] Available at: https://www.portiqo.com/blog/rights-tenant-indian-law/ [Accessed 26 Jan. 2019].

[12] Did you know | Owner cannot evict a tenant for five years if tenant pays rent regularly, unless owner needs to use property himself. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.livemint.com/Money/VP59yu6RiUO1gjOvfwZ9XM/Did-you-know--Owner-can8217t-evict-a-tenant-for-five-yea.html

[13] Supreme Court: Farmer can’t be evicted from leased land after expiry period. (2019). Retrieved from https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/supreme-court-farmer-cant-be-evicted-from-leased-land-after-expiry-period/

[14] (2015) 12 SCC 344

[15] Johnson and Johnson (2019). A Crash Course in Evictions: 4 Things You Need to Know. [online] The Landlord Property Management Academy. Available at: https://landlordacademy.com/a-crash-course-in-evictions-4-things-you-need-to-know/ [Accessed 26 Jan. 2019].