Shambunath vs Samad Ganai

J.N. Wazir, C.J.—This is a revision application directed against the order of Munsiff, Anantnag holding the rent deed Ex. P.A. to be

compulsorily registrable u/s 17(1)(g) of the Registration Act and its nonregistration a bar to its reception in evidence.

This revision application came up before a Single Bench of this Court and it was referred to a larger Bench as the interpretation of Section 17(1)

(g) of the Registration Act was involved therein.

The main question for consideration is whether or not the rent deed Ex. P.A., being a unregistered document, is admissible in evidence.

Section 17(1)(g) of the Registration Act reads as under:

The following documents shall be registered, namely:

(g) leases of immovable property for any term exceeding one year and reserving a yearly rent exceeding Rs. 50/ -

In order that the rent deed should come within the purview of Section 17(1)(g) two conditions have to be fulfilled namely (1) it should exceed

one year, and (2) it should reserve a yearly rent exceeding Rs. 50/ -.

The rent deed in the present case, no doubt, is for a period of more than a year. The questions whether the second condition, namely reserving a

yearly rent exceeding Rs. 50/ - is fulfilled or not. In the rent deed monthly rent is fixed at Rs. 7/ - and six monthly rent is to be paid in advance.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the yearly rent was not reserved in the lease deed and as the second condition given in

Section 17(1)(g) was not fulfilled, the document was not registrable. According to the learned Counsel it was necessary for the purpose of

registration that there should have been an annual rent reserved exceeding Rs. 50/ - but as there is no such provision in the rent deed the deed is

not registrable.

The counsel for the Respondent has argued that the words ""reserving a yearly rent"" do not mean that the deed should fix a yearly rent.

According to him the total annual rental calculated at Rs. 7/ - per month exceeds Rs. 50/ - and the term of lease of the immovable property is more

than one year, the rent deed is therefore registrable. In support of this view reliance is placed on a ruling of the Madras High Court Gopalaswami

Naidu Vs. Lakshmi Ammal, in which the question was whether the lease came within the exception to Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, the

lease being for a period of three years, no rent being payable for the two years and for the third year Rs. 400/ - being the rent fixed, it was held

that the lease was not compulsorily registrable as it came within the exemption u/s 17(1)(d).

This ruling does not support the contention raised by the counsel for the Respondent. In this case as the lease was for three years and the yearly

rent was not reserved therefore, it was held that the lease came within the exemption. In the rent deed before us no mention is made about

reserving a yearly rent and therefore the second condition laid down in Section 17(1)(g) is not fulfilled. The counsel for the Respondent has

referred to Mulla's Registration Act where at page 57 the author says under the heading ""annual rent not exceeding Rs. 50/ -"" that ""to fulfil this

condition it is not necessary that an annual rent - should be reserved. What is necessary is that if an annual rent is reserved, it should not exceed

Rs. 50/ -.

This commentary, in our opinion, does not help the Respondent inasmuch as what it means is that if in the document annual rent is reserved it

will not be enough to exempt the document from registration. There should be reservation of annual rent and the rent should not exceed Rs. 50/ -

and then alone the document will come within the exemption to Section 17(1)(d) of the Indian Registration Act. In the present case the document

does not at all mention the reservation of annual rent and it is not open to calculate the monthly rent in order to see whether the annual rent by such

calculation exceeds Rs. 50/ -.

In Attra v. Mangal Singh 65 Ind Cas 254 : AIR 1922 Lah 43 it is laid down that Section 17 of the Registration Act, being a disabling Section

must be strictly construed and unless a document is clearly brought within the purview of that section, its non - registration is no bar to its being

admitted in evidence. If there is any doubt on the subject, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the person who wants the Court to receive the

document in evidence.

Considering Section 17(1)(g) strictly the document will be registrable provided the lease is for more than one year and there is a clause in the

rent deed reserving a yearly rent exceeding Rs. 50/ - In the document there is no mention of the annual rent and therefore it cannot be said that the

lease reserves a yearly rent exceeding Rs. 50/ - and thus makes the document registrable. A Division Bench of this Court in Dharamarth

Department v. L. Basant Lal Civil Revision No. 65 of 1994 has taken the same view which is reported in 42 Pun LR J&K 25 and it was held that

unless the deed mentions the rent to be paid yearly, it cannot be said that the lease reserves yearly rent and as such the deed is not compulsorily

registrable.

I see no reason to differ from the view taken by this Court in the above case. In the result this application is allowed and the order of the

Munsiff holding the document inadmissible in evidence for want of registration is set aside. The parties are left to bear their own costs in this Court.

S.M. Fazl Ali, J.

I agree.