Clause Creating Perpetual Tenancy Is Void Without Registration – Allahabad High Court Rejects Tenant’s Defense Based On Unregistered Rent Deed

“A Lease That Bars Eviction For All Time Is Clearly For A Term Exceeding One Year And Must Be Registered” – In a landmark decision clarifying the evidentiary admissibility of unregistered lease agreements under property law, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the eviction of a tenant based on an unregistered lease deed which sought to permanently bar eviction. The judgment upheld the concurrent findings of the trial and revisional courts that the lease agreement dated 11 July 1990 was inadmissible in evidence as it was unregistered, and that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was validly served by refusal.

Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, delivering the judgment, firmly rejected the tenant’s reliance on Clause 3 of the lease deed that sought to bar eviction proceedings altogether, holding that such a clause conferred a lease in perpetuity, which under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908, mandates compulsory registration.

“No Registration, No Evidence – Lease Exceeding One Year Cannot Be Proved Without Compliance Of Law”

The High Court found the tenant’s entire defense hinged on the lease agreement dated 11.07.1990, which contained a clause barring the landlord from initiating eviction proceedings. However, the Court ruled that such a clause created a lease for a term exceeding one year or in perpetuity, which must be registered to be admissible under law.

Justice Agarwal observed:

“Clause 3 reveals that the landlord is barred from initiating eviction proceedings against the tenant, meaning thereby that lease is for a term exceeding one year and is in perpetuity. Once the period of lease exceeds one year, it compulsorily needs to be registered both in terms of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as well as Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908.”

The Court relied on a conjoint reading of Section 107 TPA and Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act to hold that such a lease deed cannot be taken in evidence unless registered.

Additionally, the document was not stamped, and Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 prohibits admission of unstamped documents in evidence. The Court reiterated:

“The rent deed being not a registered document was rightly turned down in evidence by the courts below.”

“Presumption Of Service By Refusal Is Legally Valid – It Is The Tenant’s Duty To Rebut”

The petitioner also challenged the service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, arguing that since the postman was not produced, the notice could not be deemed served.

Rejecting this contention, the Court upheld the established legal position that postal endorsements like “refused” carry statutory presumption of correctness, unless rebutted by cogent evidence.

Quoting from a series of authoritative rulings, including the Full Bench decision in Ganga Ram v. Phulwati, AIR 1970 All 446 (FB) and the Supreme Court decision in Samittri Devi v. Sampuran Singh, (2011) 3 SCC 556, the Court held:

“By virtue of Section 14 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the endorsement of ‘refusal’ is to be treated as prima facie evidence of correctness. This being a statutory presumption, it is the addressee's duty to rebut it by adducing adequate evidence. Mere denial is not enough.”

The Court further cited the judgment in Prem Bahadur Dalela v. Umeshraj Bali, SCC Rev No. 157 of 2015, noting:

“When the endorsement is made by a postman, it is to be treated as prima facie valid. It is the addressee who must disprove the correctness by examining the postman or adducing other convincing evidence. In the absence of such rebuttal, the presumption of service stands.”

In this case, the tenant had not brought any evidence except a bare denial. Hence, the Court found that both the trial court and revisional court were justified in holding that notice under Section 106 TPA was validly served.

“Month-to-Month Tenancy Argument Contradicted By Tenant’s Own Document”

The petitioner attempted to argue that the tenancy was from month to month, and hence, the lease deed did not require registration under the U.P. Amendment to Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act.

However, the High Court found this claim untenable in light of the lease deed’s contents. Particularly, Clause 3, which barred eviction, clearly negated any monthly tenancy and suggested a perpetual tenancy, which requires registration.

“The submission that lease was on month-to-month basis is totally against the averments in Clause 3 of the agreement. It is clear that the lease was made giving blanket right to the tenant to use it without any authority to the landlord to evict him.”

Citing Ashish v. Saleem, 2016 (7) ADJ 7 and Siri Chand v. Surinder Singh, 2020 AIR (SC) 3249, the Court distinguished those rulings by observing that in both cases, the tenancy was genuinely month-to-month and thus did not attract mandatory registration.

Eviction Upheld – Tenant in Arrears, Notice Served, No Valid Defense

Ultimately, the High Court found no merit in either of the two contentions raised by the tenant:

1. The lease deed was unregistered and hence inadmissible;

2. The notice was duly served by refusal, and tenant failed to rebut the statutory presumption.

Justice Agarwal summed up: “Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the rent deed being not a registered document was rightly turned down in evidence by court below and notice under Section 106 having been served terminating the tenancy, as tenant had committed default in payment of rent, the order of eviction and arrears of rent passed by both courts below need no interference of this Court.”

The writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was accordingly dismissed, affirming the decree for eviction and arrears of rent.

Date of Decision: 14 November 2025