A. SEETARAM REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE tenants are the revisionists here. Aggrieved by an order made by the Rent Court resulting in dismissal of the Execution Petition filed by them, this revision petition is filed. A compromise was arrived at in rent proceedings initiated earlier by the respondent-landlord herein whereunder the tenants were to vacate the premises and after reconstruction within 5 months the premises were to be handed over to the tenants with a term that the rents will be enhanced and the premises will be vacated after 3 years. Based on that the tenants filed the E. P. , which is rejected by the Executing court on the ground that the said compromise is registerable and since this is wanting the E. P. , cannot be entertained. The tenants relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Naibahu vs. La/a Ram Narayan, which on all fours applicable to the case on hand and wherein it is held :"mr. Sanghi also submits that the decree in this case incorported a lease for five years and in absence of registration under Section 17 (1) (d) of the REGISTRATION ACT, 1908 the decree is invalid and cannot be actedupon. As already pointed out this objection is untenable in view of the decision of this Court in Girdharilal (AIR 1977 SC 129) (Supra ). The question would turn on the terms of the compromise. After a careful consideration of the terms of the compromise and the whole tenor of the compromise petition it is absolutely clear that there was no intention to create a lease between the parties. It is the dominate intention of the document which must guide the construction of its contents. In the recitals of the compromise petition in three places it is stated categorically that "the plaintiff shall be entitled to excute her decree against the defendants. " There was therefore no intention to create a lease with regard to any portion of the property although, certain arrangements had been entered for the intermediate occupation of a certain portion before vacating that portion after expiry of five years. The few alterations and improvements agreed upon by consent were merely on arrangement for vacating two floors and in order to vacate remaining portion after using it for five years. There was no intention whatsoever to create a new lease. There is, therefore no question of Registration of the decree. The submission is devoid of substance. The High Court is, therefore, clearly wrong in holding that a lease was created by the compromise and that the decree was ineffective on account of non-registration. "

( 2 ) WHEREAS for the contra position the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision ia Sumati Bai vs. Ananth wherein it is held :" (A) REGISTRATION ACT, 1908 (1908), S. 17 (1) (d ). Compromise decree creating lease, for term exceeding one year-Decree is registerable under Section. Where by a compromise decree the defendant agreed to continue to occupy the property which had been leased to him and the plaintiff agreed that the defendant should continue to occupy ,the property for a period exceeding one year and the defendant further agreed to give vacant possession to the plaintiff on the expiry of the period and to pay rent to the plaintiff: held that the decree was intended to operate as a lease and that as a lease it was compulsorily registrable under S. 17 (1) (d ). "

( 3 ) THE main argument of the learned counsel for the respondent landlord is that the case of the Supreme Court does not deal with the situa tion where a new lease was created. In this case it must be constured as a new lease as the rent has been enhanced and the period has been laid down that within three years the premises will have to be vacated. 1 apprehend, these two ingredients are equally covered, In the Supreme Court case where notwithstanding the same, it was not treated as a new lease. Indeed it cannot be held to be a new lease at all. The arrangement that was arrived at was only to hand over the premises after repairs. The question of new l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document