S.107 Transfer Of Property Act | Lease Deed For Under 12 Months Cannot Be Rejected Due To Non-Registration: Kerala High Court

Rubayya Tasneem

2 April 2024 5:15 AM GMT

  • S.107 Transfer Of Property Act | Lease Deed For Under 12 Months Cannot Be Rejected Due To Non-Registration: Kerala High Court

    The Kerala High Court has clarified that a lease deed for less than 12 months cannot be rejected for want of registration under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act.“A mere reading of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, will make it clear that the requirement of compulsory registration of lease deed is applicable only in respect of a lease from year to year or for any...

    The Kerala High Court has clarified that a lease deed for less than 12 months cannot be rejected for want of registration under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act.

    “A mere reading of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, will make it clear that the requirement of compulsory registration of lease deed is applicable only in respect of a lease from year to year or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving an yearly rent” observed Justices Anil K. Narendran and G. Girish.

    The respondent had sought an eviction against the petitioner-tenant on the ground of arrears of rent and bona fide need as provided under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner-tenant had submitted a preliminary objection denying the title of the respondent-landlord over the property in dispute which was dismissed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority.

    The rental arrangement between the petitioner and the respondent is said to have been renewed on 05.01.2022 for a period of 11 months on the basis of a lease deed executed on that day. The petitioner submitted that the document was not executed with an intention to create a lease.

    The court noted that the petitioner had taken a contrary view in their submissions at the lower court for the purpose of a permanent prohibitory injunction.

    The court also remarked that there had been no evidence to support the petitioner's argument regarding a payment of 4 lakh by the petitioner's father to the respondent-landlord for the purpose of executing a sale deed.

    “There is absolutely no illegality or impropriety in the observations of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority in the above regard” concluded the court.

    Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates KP Sujesh Kumar and Keerthi K Narayanan

    Counsel for Respondent: Advocate Navaneeth N Nath

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 215

    Case title: Sheela v. Abdul Gafoor

    Case number: RCREV. No. 1 of 2024

    Click here to read/download the judgement

    Next Story