The entire plaint has to be considered, and the statutory inhibitions imposed by the provisions of Section 35 of the Stamp Act did not lead to rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, C. P. C.

By this order the Court proposes to dispose of an application filed by the defendant under O. 7, R. 11, C. P. C., whereunder the defendant has sough rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff cannot file any proceedings seeking to hold the suit property after expiry of the lease period i.e. after 31-12-2006 and that as the lease agreement is an unregistered document, and is hit by the provisions of Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (in short 'the Stamp Act'), the suit is barred by law.

2. In brief reference to the facts of the case is necessary before dealing with the present application. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit against the defendant praying inter alia for the following reliefs :-

"(a) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its men or agents, and all other persons acting on its behalf from preventing and/or interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful enjoyment and possession of the suit schedule property situated at Plot No. H-4, Block B-1, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.

(b) For a declaration that the plaintiff cannot be evicted from the aforesaid suit schedule property except by the due process of law.

(c) direct the defendant for specific performance of the Agreement/Lease Deed dated 15-12-2003 by extending the Lease period of the suit schedule property till 31-12-2009, as sought for in letter dated 29-9-2006.

(d) any other order or relief in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff approached the defendant who is the owner of a property situated at Plot No. H-4, Block B-1, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044, for taking on lease, an area measuring 22,950 sq. ft. A lease deed dated 15-12-2003, was executed between the parties in respect of the suit property. Article 1.1 of the lease deed stipulated the term of the lease for a period of three years w.e.f. 1-1-2004. Article 1.3 provided for renewal of the lease deed with escalation of the rent @ 15% over the last paid rent while the other terms and conditions of the renewal were agreed to be mutually decided by the parties. By letter dated 29-9-2006, the plaintiff approached the defendant for renewal of the lease for a further period of three years and agreed to increase the rent by 15% per annum, over the last paid rent. The said letter was replied to by the defendant vide letter dated 20-10-2006, stating inter alia that the defendant was willing to renew the lease for a further period of three years only on the prevailing market rent. The plaintiff rejoined to the aforesaid reply of the defendant vide letter dated 14-11-2006, reiterating its offer for renewal of the lease at the increased rent of 15% p.a. but not at the prevailing market rent. It is averred in the plaint that as the plaintiff apprehended that the defendant might take coercive steps to dispossess it from the suit property, it approached this Court by way of the present suit stating inter alia that the action of the defendant in insisting upon demanding the prevailing market rate as the rent for the suit property is contrary to the lease agreement dated 15-12-2003, entered into between the parties.

4. Notice was issued in the aforesaid suit on 20-12-2006. While appearance was entered on behalf of the defendant on 6-2-2007, the present application came to be filed prior thereto, on 3-2-2007. The stand of the defendant in its application is that the entire case of the plaintiff is based on an unregistered lease agreement dated 15-12-2003, which was for a limited period of three years, which period expired on 31 -12-2006. Counsel for the defendant states that the suit property does not enjoy any protection under the tenancy laws or the Delhi Rent Control Act and the plaintiff is bound to hand over the physical possession thereof to the defendant,