Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri R.C.Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M.A.Qadeer, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri V.K.Nagaich, Advocate for respondent No. 2/1/4.

2. This Court formulated following substantial questions of law, which have to be answered in this appeal:

i. Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in allowing the Civil Appeal No. 81/79 filed by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 without upsetting the findings recorded by the trial Court that the alleged lease-deed in their favour was wholly illegal and contrary to law?

ii. Whether a lease-deed executed on behalf of Municipal Board in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Municipalities Act and the notifications issued thereunder is required to be registered?

iii. Whether the provisions of registration requiring registration of the lease-deed would override the provisions of U.P. Municipalities Act and the notifications issued thereunder which had made a special provision for grant of lease of properties vested with the Municipal Board?

3. The necessary facts, in brief, for better understanding of dispute so as to effectively answer aforesaid questions, to be looked into, are stated as under:

4. Smt. Ram Kumari Devi, Dr.Lokesh Chandra and Smt. Maitri Devi instituted original suit No. 134 of 1974, initially against Municipal Board Bisalpur, (hereinafter referred to as “Board”), seeking mandatory injunction that Board should execute within such time, as fixed by Court, a proper lease-deed at the cost of plaintiffs for further period of 30 years, on the terms and conditions, laid down in lease-deed dated 20.10.1948. Subsequently, by way of amendment, it also impleaded Sri Ram Bhajan Lal and Harnandan Prasad as defendants 2 and 3 and a prayer was also added that in case defendants 2 and 3 or any of the defendants be found in possession of suit property, the same be delivered to be plaintiffs after dispossession of defendants.

5. The suit was contested by Board. In its written statement dated 6.11.1975 it pleaded that terms of lease granted to the plaintiffs expired long back and plaintiffs are occupying the land without title. The plaintiffs never gave any application for renewal as alleged in September, 1973 and hence there was no occasion to consider the question of renewal of lease by the Board. As per the lease-deed, the plaintiffs were required to built a building for their use which they failed and hence they lost their right of renewal and that the Board has approved lease of the land in favour of some other person hence no question of renewal arises.

6. The defendants 2 and 3 filed an application dated 4.5.1977 seeking their impleadment alleging that after expiry of lease granted to the plaintiffs on the property in dispute, Board has given property on lease to them (defendant 2 and 3) and therefore, they should also be made party. This was allowed and they were impleaded as defendants 2 and 3.

7. The plaintiffs also got para 6A added in the plaint challenging grant of lease to defendants 2 and 3 and pleaded that lease is void under the provisions of Municipality Act and also hit by Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1882”) and contractual obligation between defendant 1 would not come in their (plaintiffs’) way otherwise.

8. The written statement dated 17.12.1977 was filed by defendants 2 and 3 wherein they alleged that plaintiffs had no right to seek renewal of lease and since the Board had executed a lease-deed in their favour, hence plaintiffs have no right now to claim renewal. It was also stated that they (defendants 2 & 3) have got possession of land in dispute and now they cannot be dispossessed.

9. Thereafter an additional written statement, dated 11.5.1978, was filed by defendant 1, wherein it was alleged that neither defendants 2 and 3 are in possession of the land in dispute, nor any lease-deed has been executed, according to law, in their favour, and they also thus cannot claim any