The main legal point established in the judgment is that an unregistered Addendum Agreement cannot be given effect to and a suit for specific performance may be barred by the law of limitation.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC, 1908 challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 2nd June, 2022 passed by the learned ADJ (South District) Saket Court, New Delhi in CS/DJ No. 27 of 2022.

2. Vide the impugned order, the learned ADJ (South District) Saket Court, New Delhi, allowed the application under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC of the respondent/plaintiff (landlord) and inter alia passed a preliminary decree in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and directed the petitioner/defendant to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property bearing House No. F-25A, Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi, admeasuring about 500 sq.yds. comprising Ground Floor, First Floor and Second Floor consisting of seven bedrooms with attached bathroom, two drawing rooms, two kitchens, four servant quarters etc. within a period of two weeks from today.

3. Before this Court proceeds further, it is necessary to record certain undisputed facts. A lease deed was entered into between the parties on 20th January, 2010 which was duly registered for the lease of premises up to 30th October, 2019. An Addendum Agreement dated 4th February, 2017 was also executed between the parties whereby the tenancy was extended for another 9 years. It is an admitted fact that this Addendum Agreement was not registered.

4. The respondent/landlord served a legal notice dated 22nd December, 2021 upon the petitioner/defendant for termination of tenancy with regard to the property in dispute. The notice was duly served and was replied by the petitioner/tenant vide communication dated 5th January, 2022. Subsequently, the respondent/landlord filed a suit for possession bearing Suit No. 27/2022 in which the present application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC has been allowed. The petitioner/defendant herein also filed a Civil Suit No. 115 of 2022 seeking specific performance of the Addendum Agreement dated 4th February, 2017 and the Letter/Agreement dated 20th July, 2020. This suit was filed after the respondent/landlord had filed suit for possession.

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Trial Court has fallen into grave error while passing the decree on the basis of admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC particularly when it was an admitted case of the parties that Addendum Agreement dated 4th February, 2017 was executed between the parties whereby the lease was executed for another 9 years.

6. Learned senior counsel submits that even if the Addendum Agreement dated 4th February, 2017 was unregistered, it could have been seen for the collateral purpose as provided under Section 41 of the Registration Act, 1908.

7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the service of notice is not disputed, the petitioner/defendant has raised a substantial defence that by virtue of this notice, the tenancy is not terminated. Learned counsel has submitted that in the present facts and circumstances, a judgment/decree on the basis of admission could not have been passed.

8. Learned senior counsel has taken this Court through the pleadings in the Civil Suit being filed by the petitioner/defendant as well as the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC to emphasize that the execution of the Addendum Agreement dated 4th February, 2017, is not disputed.

9. Learned senior counsel further submits that in the written statement at no point of time, the petitioner/ defendant has made any categorical and unambiguous admission on the basis of which, this discretion under Order XII Rule 6 CPC could have been exercised by the learned Trial Court.

10. Learned Senior counsel has submitted that the petitioner/defendant in his written statement has also taken a defence that Late Sh. Rajendera Kumar, the then Karta of HUF, had approached the petitioner/defendant for sale of share of one M/s Ram Prasad Enterprises