( 1 ) THE plaintiff/applicant is seeking interim injunction restraining defendants from dispossessing him from the suit premises i. e. portion comprising of reception cell at ground floor, entire first floor, second floor and third floor of property bearing No. H-66, New Delhi South Extension Part-1 as he claims that he is in occupation in independent capacity as a tenant.

( 2 ) THE broad admitted facts are that the defendant No. 1 took the premises of defendant No. 2 on lease by way of registered lease deed dated 1st May, 2000 on a monthly rent of Rs. 45,000/ -. However, the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 decided to enter a joint venture collaboration agreement for the purpose of carrying on computer centre for education. The said collaboration agreement did not work well and the parties fell apart. Consequently agreement was cancelled by agreement dated 17th July, 2000.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff has staked its claim of having been accepted and admitted by defendant No. 2 as an independent tenant, firstly on the ground that it was clearly stated in the joint venture collaboration agreement that the said joint venture company would operate its registered office and computer centre from the suit premises; secondly that it was in the knowledge of defendant No. 2 that plaintiff company in collaboration with defendant No. 1 had been carrying on the business so much so, defendant No. 2 even consented for installation of telephone in the premises in the name of the plaintiff company. The telephone bills are also in the name of the plaintiff company.

( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY defendant No. 1 had been paying the agreed rent and also handed over the possession of the premises to defendant No. 2 after termination of the lease.

( 5 ) THE plaintiff s claim is that defendant No. 1 by way of cancellation of joint venture agreement handed over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff on 17. 7. 2000 and as such the plaintiff became the tenant in his own right. Counsel for the. plaintiff contends that as per the agreement dated 17. 7. 2000, the possession of the suit property was to remain with the plaintiff company as it had spent huge amount on the renovation of the premises.

( 6 ) LEASE of immovable property is created under Section 105 of Transfer of property Act. According to it unless and until the agreement confers upon the lessee a right to possession for a specific time against consideration of rent, it is not a lease. Its essential elements are that (i) there should be parties who are known as lessor and lessee; (ii) they must be persons who are competent to contract; (iii) the subject matter should be immovable property; (iv) there should be transfer of an interest to enjoy the property; (v) its commencement and cessation should be certain or capable of being ascertained; (vi) transfer of possession should be against consideration either through premium or rent.

( 7 ) AS is apparent none of the aforesaid ingredients prima facie exists even in the own reckoning of the plaintiff/applicant.

( 8 ) TENANCY cannot be created in a manner as set up by the plaintiff. Mere consent for installation of telephone in the name of the plaintiff did not create tenancy in its favour. Defendant No. 2 is gullible old lady as is apparent from the signature. appearing on the application addressed to the General Manager, MTNL in which she has stated that she has no objection for installation of new telephone connection at the premises in the name of Mr. Aashit Aggarwal. Since plaintiff in collaboration with defendant No. 1 had been carrying on the business from the suit property, landlady might have given her consent for installation of telephone in the name of Mr. Aashit Aggarwal.

( 9 ) HAD there been an intention on the part of defendant No. 2 to create an independent tenancy in favour of the plaintiff nothing prevented the plaintiff from entering into lease deed as defendant No. 1 had done at the time of taking possession of the premises in its