( 1 ) BY this Order I shall dispose of the present application filed by the Plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 praying for the passing of a decree of ejectment against the Defendant. In paragraph 2 of the plaint it has been pleaded that the "premises was let out by the Plaintiff No. 1 to the Defendant along with fittings, furniture and electrical equipment etc. for a period of five years commencing from 1st day of April, 2000 at a total monthly rent of Rs. 33,000/ -. . . . ". A Lease Deed was entered into between the parties but it is neither adequately stamped nor is it registered. It, therefore, cannot be read in evidence. Along with the Lease Deed, however, two Agreements of even date were also executed pertaining (i) to the hire of furniture, fittings and (ii) to maintenance. The hire charges were fixed at Rs. 7000/- per month and the maintenance charges were fixed at Rs. 18,000/ -. By deduction, therefore, the rent is Rs. 8,000/- per month.

( 2 ) A legal Notice to Quit dated 10. 12. 2001 has been issued which has been admitted as well as replied to in terms of the letter of Shri Gagan Gupta dated 3. 1. 2002. The statement pertaining to the Lease, Hire and the Maintenance Agreements have been spelt out in the legal Notice to Quit dated 10. 12. 2001.

( 3 ) THE short question is whether a decree for ejectment can be passed. It has been contended on behalf of Defendant that firstly the Lease Agreement can be relied upon under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. Reliance has been placed on Nathulal v. Phoolchand, (1970) 2 SCR 854 and Technicians Studio Private Limited v. Lila Ghose and Anr. , [1978] 1 SCR 516. In situations where a document is required to be compulsorily registered and has not been so done, it is well settled that a party can still rely on it as a shield. However, this issue pales into insignificance in view of the averments in the plaint itself, to the effect that the period of letting was for five years. Apart from the said Lease Deed, the tenure of the lease agreed to between the parties can also be determined from other documents which do not suffer from any legal disability on the ground of their non-registration. In this case these are the Hire and the Maintenance Agreements. The Maintenance Agreement specifically states that it is for a period of five years.

( 4 ) COUNSEL for the Plaintiff has submitted that it has also been averred in the plaint that the tenancy is for month to month. The Plaintiff may eventually succeed in making good this plea, however hard it may appear at the present moment keeping the other statement that the lease was for a period of five years. The fact remains that at this stage a decree cannot be passed on alleged admissions or on the grounds that the tenancy was from month to month.

( 5 ) THE other ground for terminating the lease is that the Defendant has stopped paying rent, and this has been specifically alleged in the notice mentioned above. In the Reply to the Notice as also in the Written Statement these averments have been traversed and it has been stated that the payment of rent, hire fees and the maintenance charges were discontinued due to certain events. These events cannot be brushed aside at the present stage of the suit, and the suit cannot be decreed under Order XII Rule 6.

( 6 ) RELIANCE has been placed by counsel for the Plaintiff on M/s. S. L. Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Karnataka Handloom Dev. , 62 (1996) DLT 386, Zamila Begum v. Union of India and Ors. , 62 (1996) DLT 395 (DB), Surjit Singh v. H. N. Pahilaj (Deceased) through L. Rs. , 65 (1997) DLT 22, Theeta Industrial Heating Equipments (P) Ltd. v. Harvinder Singh and Ors. , 65 (1997) DLT 30 (DB), R. N. Sachdeva v. Ram Lal Mahajan Charitable Trust, 1997 (41) DRJ 698, SAB Industries Ltd. v. Chief Executive Officer, CGEWHO, 1997 (41) DRJ 704, Lakshmikant Shreekant (HUF) through its Karta L. K. Jhunjhunwala v. M. N. Dastur and Company Pvt. Ltd. , 71 (1998) DLT 564, Samir Mukherjee v. Davin