ORDER

The present petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned letter dated 24.06.2021 issued by the 3rd respondent and direct the 1st respondent herein to register the Lease deed entered into by the petitioner with M/s.Infiniti Retail Limited.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the subject property was developed under a registered Wakf Deed dated 20.06.1957 having obtained necessary approval from Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority ('CMDA') which property consists of stilt plus four floors, . While being so, the 3rd respondent issued a notice dated 31.08.2017 calling upon the petitioner to register the above said building with the 3rd respondent as the same was developed under Real Estate Regulation and Development Act 106 ('RERA Act') for which, the petitioner sent a reply stating that the petitioner is neither a promoter nor he had sold the above said property and said property was developed from their own funds, which does not come under the purview of the RERA Act.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that, after completing the construction, the petitioner having obtained a completion certificate from CMDA, had leased out 1st, 2nd & 3rd floor of the premises to M/s. Infiniti Retail Limited under a lease Deed dated 27.08.2022. Thereafter, said Lease Deed was placed for registration before the 1st respondent/Sub Registrar, however, the 1st respondent had refused to register the same based on the communication of the 3rd respondent requesting not to register the lease deed presented by the petitioner and also insisting for the “No Objection Certificate” to be obtained from the 3rd respondent. Challenging the said communication of the 3rd respondent, the present petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the claim of the petitioner that he is neither a promoter nor he had sold the property and that the building constructed in the subject property has been leased out by the petitioner and the said property has not been sold and only the lease deed has been placed for registration before the registering authority and therefore, the petitioner is not required to register the property with the 3rd respondent.

5. As per sections 22-A, 22-B, 71 & 74 of the Registration Act, the

3rd respondent has no authority to direct the registering authority not to entertain the document for registration. Such, being the case, the act of the 1st respondent in refusing to entertain the document presented by the petitioner by merely citing an objection raised by the 3rd respondent is wholly unsustainable. Therefore, the impugned letter which was issued by the 3rd respondent needs interference and the same is liable to be set aside.

6. On the above contentions, this Court heard the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and perused the materials available on record.

7. The issue arises in the present case is no longer res integra as the similar issue was considered by this Court in the case of Vadamugam Vellode NalukaraiNattu Goundergal Sangam Vs Inspector General of Regisration, 2021 (1) CTC 535 in W.P.No.12585 of 2020 & W.M.P.Nos.15518 & 15521 of 2020. The relevant portion of the order is extracted under as:

10. The 5th Respondent has approached the Civil Court and he has file O.S.No.48 of 2019, seeking for the relief of Partition and separate posession of 1/27th share in the Suit properties. It is also seen that the 5th Respondent has filed yet another Suit in O.S.No.58 of 2017 in which kshe has claimed for the relief of Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants not to alienate the Suit Properties. In both the Suits, there is no Order passsed by the Competent Civil Court injuncting from dealing with the Suit properties. What the 5th Respondent was not able to achieve before the Civil court is now sought to be achieved through the 3rd Respondent by virtue of a Letter given before this Court, da