The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, the effect of non-registration of the Lease Deed under Section 49 of the Registration Act, and the inadmissibility of unstamped and unregistered instruments under Section 35 of the Stamp Act.

JUDGMENT

Najmi Waziri, J. (Oral)

The hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).

1. This appeal impugns the order dated 20.12.2022 disposing off two suits, one filed by the appellant bearing no. CS(COMM)266/2021 titled as Brompton Lifestyle Brands Pvt. Ltd. v. Riveria Commercial Developers Limited, which was pending before the Court of District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Patiala House Court, New Delhi and another suit filed by the respondent bearing no. CS (COMM) 640/2022 before this Court. In former suit, following relief was sought:

"a) Pass a decree of Permanent Injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant whereby permanently restraining the Defendant from dispossessing the Plaintiff from the suit shop i.e. shop bearing number G-5A, situated at ground floor of the building namely, The Chanakya, situated at Yashwant Place Commercial Complex, opposite Chanakyapuri Post Office, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi-110021, without following due process of law,"

2. An interim relief had been granted to the appellant in the suit bearing no. CS(COMM)266/2021 to the following effect:

"8..Keeping in view the interest of justice, defendant, his officers, employees, representatives, agents or any other person on his behalf is hereby restrained with immediate effect till next date of hearing to obstruct the ingress or outgress of the plaintiff or his employees or customers etc. in any manner whatsoever to/in the suit shop subject to condition that without prejudice to respective rights and contentions of the parties concerned, plaintiff will pay an amount of Rs.50 lakhs to the defendant on account of arrears of rent on or before 14.08.2021 and will pay the remaining admitted amount of arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.68 lakhs on or before 18.09.2021."

3. The suit before this court got dismissed in default, but was subsequently restored. No replication was filed. It is not in dispute that the entire records of the case bearing no. CS(COMM)266/2021, titled as Brompton Lifestyle Brands Pvt. Ltd. v. Riveria Commercial Developers Limited, had been filed in the subsequent suit preferred by the respondent i.e. CS (COMM)640/2022. The suit bearing no. CS(COMM)266/2021 was transferred from Patiala House Courts to this Court and was disposed-off on 20.12.2022.

4. The appellant states that on the date, the impugned order was passed, the records of suit bearing no. CS(COMM)266/2021 had not been transferred from the Patiala House Court to this Court. Admittedly, the entire pleadings of the appellant's said suit had been filed by the respondent i.e. CS(COMM)640/2022 (P.P. 237-883, of this appeal) including the Written Statement and the orders passed in CS(COMM)266/2021. The Court is of the view that the objective of the procedure prescribed under the CPC is that the Court should have all the records pertaining to the suit so as to be able to adjudicate upon it. In effect, the learned Single Judge had the entire case records before him, albeit a copy of the same. It cannot be to the appellant's prejudice that suit was decreed as sought i.e. they would not be dispossessed from the premises except by due process of law.

5. The respondent's suit was decreed in view of the fact that the appellant had not paid rent from March, 2021 and the tenancy had been determined. The impugned order holds as under:

"27. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

28. A copy of the Written Statement as also the Affidavit of admission/denial of documents filed by the defendant has been handed over to me during the course of hearing and the same has been taken into consideration by me for passing the present order.

29. In Uttam Singh Dugal & Co. Ltd. v. Union Bank of India & Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 120, the Supreme Court explained the object of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC in the following words:

"2. As to the object of Order 12 Rule 6, we need not say anything more than what the legislature itself has