Radhakrishnan, J.

This Court in Paul v. Saleena, 2004(1) KLT 924 held that unregistered lease deeds cannot be pressed into service to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right title or interest in or to the property comprised in the document. In the instant case an unregistered lease deed was executed between the parties on 15-12-1992 leasing out the tenanted premises for a period of two years on a monthly rent of Rs.450/-. The lease deed contained a clause whereby the rent can be revised after the expiry of two years on mutually agreed terms and if the terms cannot be mutually agreed, the rent will be increased by 25% at the end of the cycle of every two years. Landlady took up the stand that the tenant is legally obliged to pay monthly rent at the rate of Rs.562.50 from 16-12-1994. In spite of repeated demands the tenant failed to pay rent from 1-1-1995. Registered notice dated 16-6-1995 was issued by the landlady to the tenant demanding the arrears of rent with interest. Landlady also wanted the tenanted premises for the purposes of starting a business in flour mill, curry powder and allied items.

2. Tenant resisted the petition contending that the tenant has no liability to pay any amount more than Rs.450/- per month by way of rent. Rent at the rate of Rs.450/- was sent by money order, but the same was refused by the landlady. Further it is also pointed out that the clause in the rent deed is unconscionable and it was executed without free consent of the tenant. Further landlady was in a dominating position and that clause was inserted at her instance. It is also stated that since the document being an unregistered one the same cannot be relied upon so as to create any right in favour of the landlady. Further it was pointed out that at best it can be used only for collateral purpose.

3. The landlady got herself examined as PW1 and produced A1 to A4 documents. Tenant got himself examined as RW1 and Accommodation Controller was examined as RW-2. No documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the tenant. Ext.X-1 is a file of Parur Municipality. Rent Control Court took the view that the term regarding enhancement of rent by 25% at the end of the cycle of every 2 years cannot be considered as a mutually agreed one and hence is not enforceable. Further it is also noticed that the tenant had expressed his willingness to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.450/-per month, but the same was not received by the landlady. Further it is also contended that there is no bonafides in the plea of the landlady. Rent Control Court noticed that the landlady had expressed a desire to start business in 1990. but the rent control petition was filed only on 28.8.1995. Further it was also noticed that the landlady has got other buildings vacant earlier, but the same was not utilized for starting the business. Further it was also noticed that no special reasons have been shown by the landlady for not using the said premises. Rent control petition was allowed under Sec. 11(2) (b) holding that the tenant is bound to pay an amount of Rs.450/- per month. Bonafide need was found against and was rejected.

4. Landlady took up the matter in appeal. Appeal was dismissed. Appellate Court rejected the claim of the landlady for enhanced rent on the basis of the various clauses in the unregistered lease deed. Appellate Authority also noticed that no steps were taken by the landlady for revision of rent. Court noticed that mutual consultation is a pre-condition before invoking the second limb of the clause relating to revision of rent. It is stated that only when mutual consultation fails second limb of the clause would apply. In view of the above mentioned circumstances Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal.

5. The Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority have rejected the prayer of the landlady for revision of rent on different grounds. The lease deed is admittedly an unregistered one. This court has laid down the law in Paul’s case (su