An unregistered compromise petition cannot modify a registered lease deed, and possession under a void lease can be considered permissive possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, subject to the principles of estoppel.

Hazari, J.

This is a second appeal by the defendant against the judgment dated 1.7.85 of an Additional District Judge of Alipore in Title Appeal No. 818 of 1984 by which the learned Judge affirmed the judgment and decree dated 27.8.84 of the Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Alipore, in an Ejectment Suit being T.S. No. 121 of 1981.

2. The relevant facts in brief are as follows :-

The premises No. 11B, Ballygunge Circular Road within the city of Calcutta belonged co the plaintiff's father, Gajananda, and the plaintiff's grand-mother, Indramoni (mother's mother). Those two owners by a registered lease deed dated 28.5.60 let out to the defendant, India steamship company Ltd., the first floor flat of the premises on certain terms and conditions, including payment of rents, for a period of 21 years effective from 1.6.60. This period of 21 years calculated from 1.6.60 expired on 31.5.81.

3. In 1963, i.e., during the subsistency of the lease, a Title Suit being T.S. No. 485 of 1963 in the Court of the Munsif at Alipore was brought by the defendant, lessee, against the lessor. That suit was, however, disposed of on the basis of a joint petition of compromise filed by the parties. In terms of the compromise petition, the defendant company, which was a lessee of the first floor flat of the premises No. 11B, Ballygunge Circular Road under the registered lease deed, was to shift to the second floor flat of the same building with some extra facilities. Monthly rent for a fes months was also varied and enhanced by the compromise petition. It was specifically mentioned in the compromise petition that all other terms and conditions as mentioned in the registered lease deed would be binding on the parties. But the compromise petition and/or the compromise decree was not, however, registered under the Registration Act.

4. Pursuant to the compromise above referred to, the defendant company shifted to the second floor flat and continued to pay rents and is still in possession thereof.

5. The period of the registered lease deed expired on 31.5.81, and in the meantime the premises in suit devolved upon the plaintiff, Brij Mohan Dalmiya, who thus stepped into the shoes of the original lessors. On the expiry of the period of the registered lease deed, the plaintiff brought the Title Suit No. 121 of 1981 for eviction of the defendant from the second floor flat contending, inter alia, that the defendant was a lessee of the second floor flat in terms of the registered lease deed dated 28.5.60 as modified by the joint petition of compromise filed in T.S. No. 485 of 1963. The defendant company resisted the claim pleading that it was not bound by the unregistered compromise petition and that it was a monthly tenant in respect of the second floor flat and, therefore, its tenancy was governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.

6. The trial Court found that the only modification of the registered lease deed sought to be effected by the compromise petition was with regard to the change of floor, and that other conditions in the registered lease deed were left untouched, and the essence of the registered lease deed was not at all changed, and, therefore, the compromise petition was not required to be registered. On this finding the trial Court decreed the suit against the defendant company. On appeal by the defendant the First Appellate Court (Additional District Judge) agreed with the views of the trial Court and affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

7. Mr. Anindya Mitra, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant defendant, submitted that the terms of the compromise decree have not been registered and as such the same is void and that though the defendant appellant has occupied the second floor in terms of the compromise petition, which is void and is of no effect, the acceptance of rent by the landlord bas created a monthly tenancy in favour of the defendant tenant. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable and is misconceived. It i