( 1 ) THIS is an application moved by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the defendants executed a lease deed dated December 1, 1990 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of commercial premises bearing No. 121 in Indra Prakash Building situate at 21, Barakamba Road, New Delhi, measuring 431, sq. ft. Under the lease deed the plaintiff was required to pay to the defendants a monthly rental of Rs. 12,068. 00. The lease was initially for a period of three years commencing from December 1, 1990 and ending on November 30, 1993. Clause 4 (a) of the deed makes provision for renewal of the lease on the same terms and conditions subject to the rent being increased on each renewal by 20% over the above which was payable immediately prior to the respective renewal. Clauses 8 of the deed contemplates execution of a fresh lease deed in favour of the lessees for the term for which the lease is renewed. The plaintiff before the expiry of the initial period of three years, requested the defendants to renew the lease for a further period of three years. However, the defendants by their notice dated August 6, 1993 called upon the plaintiff to hand over the possession of the demised property on the ground that the lease was to expire on November 30, 1993 by efflux of time. In response to the above said notice, the plaintiff by its reply dated August 24, 1993 clarified that the lease was of a perpetual nature and she was willing to renew the same for a further period of three years. The defendants, however, not acceding to the request of the plaintiff, filed a suit for recovery of possession of the demised premises which is pending before the trial court. On the other hand, the plaintiff filed the instant suit seeking, inter alia, the following reliefs:-

(I) to direct the defendants to get the lease deed dated December 1, 1990 registered; (ii) to direct the defendants to renew the lease deed for a further period of three years from December 1, 1993 to November 31, 1996 and to get the same registered; (iii) to direct the defendants to keep on renewing the lease deed dated December 1, 1990 for further period of three years each till the plaintiff desires and to get the same registered. In the alternative, the plaintiff prays for damages to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs and declaration that the lease agreement dated December 1, 1990 is of perpetual nature and the defendants are bound to renew the same regularly. The plaintiff also seeks permanent injunction for staying the proceeding of suit instituted by the defendants against the plaintiff for possession of the premises pending in the court of Additional District Judge, Delhi.

( 3 ) IT is in this suit that the defendant filed the instant application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with section 151 Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the lease deed dated December 1, 1990 was not a registered document and the suit of the plaintiff founded on the said unregistered document is barred by section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, read with section 17 (1) (d) thereof and section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the defendants appearing in support of the application submitted that since the lease agreement was for a period exceeding one year it could be made only by means of a registered instrument. The learned counsel contended that the lease deed not having been registered did not affect the immovable property comprised therein and cannot be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff convassed that the present suit is maintainable and the document fails in the protective umbrella of the proviso to section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. Drawing support from the said proviso learned counsel submitted that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and re