The court affirmed that unregistered lease agreements can be enforceable under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, provided there is part performance, and that clear termination of tenancy must be communicated for limitation to begin.

Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 53-A and 107 - Specific performance - The trial Court decreed the suit for specific performance of lease agreements dated 17.05.1985 and 20.12.1986, finding the quit notice invalid and the agreements enforceable despite being unregistered - The appellant's contention that the agreements were void due to non-registration was rejected, and the Bank was found entitled to protection under Section 53-A, affirming the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. (Paras 11, 12, 32, 42)

(B) Limitation - The time for filing a suit for specific performance begins when a clear intention to terminate the contract is communicated, which occurred on 17.05.2004. (Paras 25, 41)

(C) Lease Agreements - The agreements were deemed executory and required registration only if they created a present demise, which was not established. (Paras 32, 36)

(D) Ejectment - The suits for ejectment were dismissed with costs, affirming the Bank's right to occupy the premises. (Paras 12, 42)

Facts of the case:
The appellant sought ejectment of the respondent from leased premises, while the respondent sought specific performance of the lease agreements. The trial Court found the quit notice invalid and upheld the enforceability of the lease agreements despite their unregistered status.

Findings of Court:
The trial Court ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering the appellant to execute lease deeds and allowing the respondent to continue occupying the premises.

Issues: The primary issues were the validity of the quit notice, the applicability of Section 53-A, and the enforceability of the lease agreements.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the agreements, while unregistered, were enforceable under Section 53-A due to part performance, and the appellant's termination of tenancy was invalid.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

Regular First Appeal No.849/2008 is filed by the appellant/defendant against the judgment and decree dated 26.05.2008 of the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short 'the trial Court') in Original Suit No.670/2006 and Regular First Appeals No.847/2008 and 848/2008 are filed by the appellant/plaintiff being aggrieved by common judgment and decree dated 26.05.2008 of the trial Court in Original Suits No.5975/2004 & 1459/2006.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

O.S.No.5975/2004 and O.S.No.1459/2006 were filed by the appellant - M/s. Naveen Hotels Ltd., against the respondent - M/s. Canara Bank for ejectment from the schedule premises. The schedule premises in O.S.No.5975/2004 was ground plus five floors of a building constructed by the plaintiff bearing No.14, M.G. Road, Bengaluru, while the schedule premises in O.S No.1459/2006 was the 6^th floor of the same building. The said two suits were dismissed with costs, which are the subject matter of RFA No.847/2008 and RFA No.848/2008.

3. O.S.No.670/2006 was filed by Canara Bank against M/s.Naveen Hotels, seeking specific performance of two Lease Agreements:-

(i) Lease Agreement dated 17.05.1985 (Ex.P1), under which ground plus five floors was taken on lease by the Bank; and

(ii) Lease Agreement dated 20.12.1986 (Ex.P5), under which the 6^th floor of the building was taken on lease.

4. The parties are being referred to as 'the appellant' and 'the Bank' for the sake of convenience in this judgment.

5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the lease deeds in question were 'present demises' and being for a period of 99 years, they were compulsorily registerable. It is submitted that a deposit premium was also provided in the lease agreements. Since the lease agreements were admittedly not registered, the tenancy, if any, continued as a monthly tenancy after 11 months and the suit for specific performance of the unregistered agreements was not maintainable. It is submitted that the Bank is occupying the schedule premises paying only a meager rent and the plaintiff requires the premises for its own use. Further, the plaintiff had informed the defendant by letters dated 08.06.2002 and 29.07.2002 that no lease agreements would be registered as agreed between the parties and that the lease can be registered only if the modified terms are agreed to. Further, notice of termination of the tenancy in respect of ground plus five floors was issued on 17.05.2004 and in respect of the sixth floor on 10.04.2004. The respondent sent a reply notices dated 01.06.2004 admitting the tenancy but declined to vacate. Thereafter, the suits for eviction were filed on 10.08.2004 and 18.02.2006, respectively.

6. O.S.No.670/2006 was filed on 21.01.2006 by the Bank seeking specific performance of the agreements dated 17.05.1985 and 20.12.1986. The Bank raised contentions in the plaint that the agreements were not 'present demises' and were only executor contracts. It was contended that the agreement between the parties was that the possession of the schedule premises would be handed over after the construction is complete. It was submitted that the Bank had fulfilled its part of the obligations and had paid a substantial amount as advance and was also paying the rent as agreed between the parties.

7. The trial Court based on the pleadings framed the following issues in Original Suits No.5975/2004 and 1459/2006:

In O.S.No.5975/2004:

1. Whether the quit notice dated 17.05.2004 is valid?

2. Whether the defendant is entitled to protection u/s. 53-A of the TP Act?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to vacant possession of the schedule property?

In O.S.No.1459/2006:

1. Whether the termination of tenancy is valid?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the schedule property?

8. The plaintiff-M/s.Naveen Hotels Limited, in support of its claim examined one witness as PW.1 and got marked 18 documents as Ex

Click Here to Read the rest of this document