M. S. A. Siddiqui, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff filed the present suit seeking, inter alia, the following reliefs :

" (A) Decree the suit of the plaintiff against the defendant directing the defendant to execute and register in favour of the plaintiff lease deeds every three years and when so claimed by the plaintiff with respect of Flat No. 402, Guru Angad Bhawan, 71, Nehru Place, New Delhi on the terms and conditions stated in the lease deed dated 1. 12. 79 and on payment of enhanced rent by 10% at the time of exercising each option.

(B) Injunct the defendant from in any manner interferring with the rights of the plaintiff as a lessee in the aforesaid subject property. The defendant be injuncted from in any manner disturbing the possession of the plaintiff or evicting the plaintiff from the subject premises till it pays the enhanced rent by 10% every three years.

COSTS of the suit be awarded.

SUCH other and further orders be passed as this Hon ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case. "

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff he took the suit property on rent for a period of three years w. e. f. 1. 5. 1979 at the rate of Rs. 2120. 60 per month after executing an unregistered indenture of lease dated 1st December, 1979. After the expiry of the period of three years, the plaintiff is entitled for renewal of lease for a further period of three years. Inasmuch as the agreement dated 1st December, 1979 containing renewal clause of the lease constituted an agreement in writing to lease the property in suit, the plaintiff is entitled to claim specific performance of this contract.

( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the plaintiff contended that the agreement dated 1st December, 1979 amounted to an agreement to lease and as such it could be used as a basis for the present suit for specific performance of contract. Elaborating his arguments, he submitted that the renewal, clause (paragraph 14) of the agreement is really in the nature of an agreement to lease for the renewal periods and such a term/clause is independent of the terms of the main lease deed. It does not create immediately a relationship of between lessor and lessee as this in only a promise to create a relationship of lessor and lessee in future and in this view of the matter, it does not require registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act. He further submitted that assuming that the said agreement requires registration, even then such an un-registered document can be used as a basis for a suit for specific performance of a contract. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and Others v. Atur India Pvt. Ltd. (1994)2 SCC 497; Delhi Development Authority v. Dugra Chand Kaushish, AIR 1973 SC 2609; Hamda Ammal v. Avadiappa Pathar and Others, (1991)1 SCC 715.

( 4 ) IN State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Atur India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), it was held by their Lordships that the correspondence between the Government and the respondent Company with regard to the plot in question amounted to an agreement to lease and as such the transaction was not chargeable to duty under the Bombay Stamp Act. In this connection, I may usefully excerpt the following observations of their Lordships :

28. If it is merely an agreement to lease as to whether it requires registration has come up for discussion of this Court in Tiruvenibai v. Lilabai. At page 111 it was held as under :

"before dealing with these points, we must first consider what the expression an agreement to lease means under Section 2 (7) of the Indian Registration Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Section 2 (7) provides that a lease includes a counterpart, Kabuliyat, an undertaking to cultivate and occupy and an agreement to lease. In Hemanta kumari Debi v. Midnapur Zamindari Co. Ltd. , the Privy Council has held that an agreement to lease, which a lease is by the statute declared to include must be a document which effects an actual demise and operates as a lease .

Click Here to Read the rest of this document