REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge dated 9.4.2009 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for possession under the provisions of Order XII Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The facts relevant for the decision of the present appeal are as follows:-The respondent is the owner of property No.E-25, NDSE Part-II, New Delhi measuring a covered area of 68.79 sq.mtrs.(740.44 sq.ft.) on the ground floor with public verandah in front as part thereof. The premises were let out to the appellant by the respondent in May, 1975 for 11 months by an unregistiered lease deed, which expired on 03.04.1976. No renewal was sought and the appellant continued as a tenant holding over from month to month. On 16.8.1978 again an unregistered agreement was executed between the parties for a period of three years with the lease coming into effect from 03.03.1977. The three years term having expired by efflux of time on 03.03.1980, the appellant continued as a month to month tenant by holding over. The terms of the oral tenancy also kept on changing and on 01.01.2005, a new oral month to month tenancy came into existence whereunder the rent of the suit property was increased to Rs.15,000/- per month.

3. On 30.08.2006, the respondent served upon the appellant a notice to quit to which the appellant replied on 30.10.2006. On 04.12.2006, a civil suit No.286/2006 was filed by the respondent before the trial court for ejectment and recovery of mesne profits. The appellant filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act for referring the matter to a sole Arbitrator on the basis of an arbitration clause contained in the lease agreement dated 16.08.1978. This application was dismissed by the trial court holding that the terms of tenancy stood changed between the parties by an oral agreement and the defendant, therefore, could not rely upon the agreement dated 16.08.1978 to claim existence of an arbitration clause.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the trial court dated 31.05.2007 dismissing the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, the appellant filed a revision petition being Civil Revision Petition No.166/2007 in this Court. Significantly in the said revision petition, the submission of the appellant was that the agreement dated 16.08.1978 was a business agreement executed between the parties, and the respondent in terms of this agreement was entitled to a guaranteed sale commission and it was agreed that the petitioner shall pay a consolidated sum of Rs.15,000/-per month towards sale commission and rental. It was urged that since this agreement of 1978 contained an arbitration clause, the Court was bound to refer the matter to the Arbitrator for adjudication.

5. Rejecting the aforesaid contention of the counsel for the appellant, a learned Single Judge of this Court in his judgment and order held as follows:-

“4. A perusal of the agreement dated 16th August, 1978 filed by the petitioner would show that the relationship between petitioner and the respondent was that of a lesser and lessee and lease was granted to the petitioner in 1978 for a period of 3 years starting from rd March, 1977. An option was given in the agreement to renew the terms and conditions of the lease upon mutually agreed terms. There was a clause for terminating the agreement in case of failure on the part of either of the parties in fulfilling the terms. After this agreement, which expired in 1980, no new agreement was executed.

5. It is settled law that in case of lease of immovable properties, if the lease is a period of one year or more lease deed is required to be compulsorily registered. The agreement relied upon by the petitioner is an unregistered (sic. document). Even otherwise, this agreement exhausted itself in 1980 and after 1980 there was no written agreement between the parties. After 1980 premises remained in occupation of petition (sic. petitioner) on the basis of a lea