Bonafied case for commercial property
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 24 November 2010
This query is : Resolved
Dear sir,
i would like to confirm we have commercial property from last 35 years we have no other means of livelihood my father is 52y mother is housewife and brother is also depend on shop.our we always pay rent at time.we do have deed with two witness that deed was between my grandfather and landlord father according to that his father is giving that property on lease for 99 years and he took 5 lacs for this 35 years back .and it is clearly mention it can not be terminated in any circumstances .now our landlord put bonafied case on us to vacant the property for his own need .he was working with govt mini tool in jharkand now he is retired .please suggest way so that we can save our livelihood as father is old and my brother also depend on this shop..please reply soon vaishli
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 24 November 2010
IF the lease is for 99 years, unless there is any other term which gives right to the landlord to terminate the lease earlier, the landlord cannot terminate the lease agreement now, especially since you are paying the lease rent regularly.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 24 November 2010
sir there is one problem lease is not registerd however there is signature of two witness on it and they are still alive will it work
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 24 November 2010
While you will not be able to file any case on the basis of the unregistered Lease Deed, certainly you can use the unregistered lease deed as a collateral evidence in case the landlord or his heirs file a case against you.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 24 November 2010
out of 100% with this deed how much chance we have to save our shop..please reply i am very tense
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 24 November 2010
out of 100% with this deed how much chance we have to save our shop..please reply i am very tense
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 24 November 2010
ther is no answer for this sir
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 24 November 2010
Your chance of winning the case is more than 90%.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 24 November 2010
thanks for you reply i really appericiate your time
aman kumar
(Expert) 24 November 2010
generally what is the full details ? i dont know but i can say that you can save 100% your shop on others fact also ,whare are your property ?
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 24 November 2010
its in delhi
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 24 November 2010
i will send you whole detail
Kiran Kumar
(Expert) 24 November 2010
My view is slightly to the contrary What Mr. Ramchandaran said.
S.49 of the Registration Act, 1908 is perused below:
49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered
No document required by section 17 32[or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882] to be registered shall-
(a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or
(b) confer any power to adopt, or
(c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered:
32[PROVIDED that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or as evidence of part performance of a contract for the purposes of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument.]
Now one aspect is clear that an unregistered document is no admissible in evidence but the same can be used as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected. (the extent as mentioned in the proviso)
So in my opinion, at the maximum, the court will find the nature of possession of the defendant (tenant) from the said unregistered document. Since the contents of unregistered document are not admissible in evidence so the document will only show the person is holding the possession as a tenant and not as a trespasser but rest of the contents will be ignored.
Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff/ landlord shall succeed.
This query has a substantial question of law, I hope my other friends will also intervene to discuss the issue. If I have misquoted or misunderstood the provisions of the law then please apprise me of the correct legal position :)
Y V Vishweshwar Rao
(Expert) 25 November 2010
I agree with Mr Kiran and i am of the opinion that ;-
The Un-Registered lease Deed is not the prof of the lease terms /not proved , but it can be used to prove nature of possession of the person in possession and ownership of the Land Lord, in the absence of Registered Lease Deed , the lease to be treated as Month to Month terminable with 15 days Notice u/s 106 T P Act -How ever the Tenant in possession can not be evicted without due process of law and the land lord may get him evicted after the Eviction Decree by Court - till such time the Tenant holding over may get an temporary injunction ( Not perpetual ) to the affect that he can not be evicted without due process of law.
The Other experts views to be considered in this regard .
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 25 November 2010
In such mattes out of ten points nine points for possession.
Go ahead and defend you will win. Laws and court decisions right upto SC are in favor of tenants .
Swami Sadashiva Brahmendra Sar
(Expert) 25 November 2010
Mr. Kiran Kumar has specially invited me to comment on this post.Thanks to him.
Subject to verification of relevant legal provisions, present as well as at the time of execution of deed, my opinion is as under:
1. If lesser files a suit against you then this case is covered by s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. You have clear right to protect your possession on the basis of agreement. Chances of Success is 100%. Kindly note that s. 53A can be used as a ground of defense only and not as a weapon for attack i.e. You can not file a suit on the basis of part performance.
2. If you are filing the suit, then I agree with Mr. Kiran Kumar and Mr. Y.V.V. Rao .
Kiran Kumar
(Expert) 25 November 2010
Shashi Ji, Its my humble request to you that please mention the relevant judgments.
there have been beautiful discussions on LCI these days and this issue has been one of them.
pls mention few relevant judgments so that I can also update my knowledge.
Thanks to other experts also for their kind contribution.
Y V Vishweshwar Rao
(Expert) 07 December 2010
Sec 49 Proviso of Registration Act -the benefit of Un Registered Document for the purpose of Sec 53A of T P Act is omitted by Act No;-48/2001 WEF 24-9-2001
The learned friends may consider the same!
adv. rajeev ( rajoo )
(Expert) 13 September 2012
Mine is little bit different question. Land lord has given his land for lease, but in the lease deed period of lease is not mentioned and it is perpetual lease deed. Now land lord wants to evict the tenent from the land, but tenant is denying his tittle on the basis of the perpetual lease deed. Whether tenant can do so.
