The central legal point established in the judgment is that an unregistered lease deed cannot enforce its clauses, and the tenancy defaults to a month to month basis, terminable by notice under the Transfer of Property Act.

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration &Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) impugning the order dated 01.05.2015 whereby the learned single Judge has been pleased to set aside the interim award dated 26.06.2014 passed by the sole arbitrator dismissing the application filed by the respondent under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 31 of the Act.

2. The appellant had taken on rent premises at flat No. F - 601-608 and F - 610-619 on the sixth floor of Aditya Tower, Building/Plot No.5, District Centre, Delhi on a monthly rental of Rs. 1,50,000/- under lease deed dated 27.03.2008. The period stipulated in the lease deed was 10 years. However, the lease deed was neither sufficiently stamped being stamped on a stamp paper of Rs. 50/- only nor was it registered.

3. Since the lease deed was neither sufficiently stamped nor registered, the lease-deed is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be looked into for any purpose and no term of the lease can be enforced. Since the terms of the lease cannot be relied upon or enforced, the term that provided the appellant a period of 10 years also cannot be enforced. The result of which is that the tenancy becomes a month to month tenancy.

4. The lease-deed granted the appellant a concession for a period of 3 months to make the leased premises habitable. The appellant was required to pay 50% of the rent i.e. a sum of Rs. 75,000/- for the initial period of 3 months and thereafter with effect from 27th June, 2008, the full rent of Rs. 1,50,000/- was payable. The appellant also deposited a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- as security deposit and advance rent for initial three months.

5. As per the respondent, the appellant failed to pay the rent after taking possession of the leased premises and accordingly by notice dated 13th October 2008, the tenancy of the appellant was terminated and the appellant was asked to vacate and hand over the possession of the leased premises on or before 1st November 2008.

6. The appellant in response to the said notice contended that expenses had been incurred for repair of the roof-top, which were to be reimbursed by the respondent. The appellant in its reply further contended that the lease deed was typed on requisite stamp paper and as such was not a month to month tenancy.

7. The respondent filed a suit for recovery of possession, arrears of rent. The appellant filed a counter claim against the respondent seeking a decree for recovery of the amount allegedly incurred towards repair of the premises and repair of the roof and further recovery of amount towards loss of business opportunity, reputation and goodwill and on account of mental agony and harassment. The appellant also filed an application under Section 8 of the Act seeking reference of parties to arbitration. In the said suit on the respondent’s application under Order 39 Rule 10, the appellant was directed to make payment towards arrears of rent which payment was made by the appellant.

8. On the application of the appellant under Section 8 of the Act, the Suit filed by the respondent was disposed of. Thereafter, on an application under Section 11(6), the arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate the claims raised by the respondent which inter-alia included the relief of possession, arrears of rent and mesne profits. Before the arbitrator, the appellant filed a counter-claim seeking specific performance and registration of the lease deed. The respondent filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 31 of the Act seeking possession of the suit premises.

9. It is contended by the respondent in the said application that the relationship between the parties was admittedly that of landlord and tenant, the rate of rent of the premises was more than Rs. 3500/- per month and as such, the appellant was not protected under the Rent Act. It was further contended that s