LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS is a defendant-tenant's second appeal arising out of a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment in respect of a Nohra in the town of Churu. The case set out in the plaint was that the Nohra in question was rented out by Kishanlal, father of the plaintiffs, to the appellant on 24-7-52 on an yearly rent of Rs. 4/- by a rent note Ex. 1 executed by the defendant in favour of Kishanlal. The plaintiffs terminated the defendant's tenancy by a notice dated 10-10-67 marked Ex. 4 and thereafter filed the present suit on 5th February, 1968, claiming ejectment on grounds of default in payment of rent, personal necessity and denial of the plaintiffs' title by the defendant. A decree for Rs. 12/- being three years' rent was also claimed.
(2.) THE defendant denied relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the plaintiffs. He also denied the execution of the rent note and asserted his own title to the Nohra. Admissibility of the rent-note was also challenged on the ground that it was not properly stamped and had not been registered. After recording the evidence produced by the parties the learned Munsif, Churu, decreed the plaintiffs' suit as prayed. Appeal filed by the defendant was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Churu. Hence the defendant has come in second appeal to this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged, in the first instance, that relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendant is not established. In this connection he has argued that the rent note Ex. 1 is not admissible in evidence and that no oral agreement of tenancy had been set up by the plaintiffs at any stage nor it is established that the plaintiffs had delivered possession of the Nohra to the defendant. So far as the question of execution of rent-note Ex. 1 is concerned the trial court on a consideration of the evidence produced by the parties came to the conclusion that execution of the rent-note Ex. 1 by the defendant is fully proved. This finding was not challenged by the defendant in the lower appellate court. As regards admissibility of the rent note Ex. 1 it may be noted that the rent has been mentioned therein as Rs. 4/-per year. There is no duration of lease fixed in the rent-note, but there is a condition that the defendant will have to vacate the premises whenever called upon to do so by the landlord. Such a tenancy need not be in writing and registered. In this connection reference may be made to Kushal Raj v. Mst. Mooli Bai (1), wherein it was held that a tenancy like the present where the tenant had agreed to vacate the premises whenever the landlord should desire him to do so, is a tenancy-at-will and the mere fact that the rent-note provided for payment of rent per annum does not and cannot make any material difference. It was further observed that, a recital of annual rate of rent in a lease deed did not constitute it as one reserving a yearly rent. I respectfully agree with the observations made in the case referred to above and hold that no registered lease deed was required in the present case and the rent-note Ex. 1 is admissible in evidence.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant also urged that 'kabuliat' or a rent note cannot be made a basis of the suit and no oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession had been pleaded and proved by the plaintiffs. It is submitted that a Kabuliat can be used only as a corroborative piece of evidence and not as a basis of the suit. In support of this contention he has relied upon Banarsilal v. Shri Bhagwan (2 ). After an exhaustive examination of the case law on the point the learned Judge observed in the ruling referred to above that undue stress should not be laid on construction of pleadings in a suit like the present one when the defendant has fair notice of the case which has been put up by the plaintiff. The learned Judge goes on to observe that it cannot be denied that in cases where there is no registered lease-deed it should be mentioned in the plaint that there was an oral agreement about the lease between the landlord and the tenant followed with the delivery of possession of the property. The suit should not simply be based on an unregistered rent-note because it can be used only in corroboration of the said oral agreement but the necessity of such a formality should not be over-stressed. Further on, the learned Judge has also observed that ordinarily a rent-note is executed after an oral agreement about the lease between the parties and in accordance with this presumption the learned Judge without any specific pleadings on the point held that in that case the rent-note was simultaneously executed after an oral agreement. In this connection I would like to refer to Shiv Dulare Lal Shah v. Anant Ram (3 ). It was held in that ruling that the circumstances that the execution of the 'kabuliat' by the lessee, the handing oyer of the 'kabuliat' in original to the lessor and the lessor thereupon putting the lessee in possession can lead only to one conclusion that there must have been an oral agreement between the lessor and the lessee agreeing to the terms on which the lessee was being put in possession of the property. There is yet another aspect of the case to which I am tempted to refer. The moment it is held that a registered lease deed is not required by law and a rent-note like the one in the present case is admissible in evidence, the admission or acknowledgement made therein by the tenant that he is in occupation of the premises in the capacity of tenant is certainly a good type of evidence and the plaintiff would be perfectly within his rights to use such an admission and acknowledgement to establish the case of tenancy between him and the defendant. I am fortified in this view by a Full Bench decision of the Lahore High Court in Mohanlal v. Ganda Singh (4) wherein it was held that, - "a rent deed (not compulsory registrable under the Registration Act) excuted by a tenant in favour of a landlord, if not registered, can be relied upon to establish the relationship existing between the parties. For, it contains an admission or an acknowledgment by the person attempted to be made liable and should be the very best evidence that one can possibly have as to the oral agreement of a lease and a Court is not prevented from looking into it for this purpose. ;