9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the lease Ex. 1 is a lease, or is only a bid-sheet. 2. Whether the lease is one which is compulsorily registrable. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any relief under the lease if it is held that the same is invalid for want of registration. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Whether the lease Ex. 1 is a lease, or is only a bid-sheet. The court analyzed Ex. 1 and concluded that it is indeed a lease, embodying all the terms of the lease and executed by both the lessor and lessee. The contention that the lease could be created by an oral agreement during the auction and that Ex. 1 was merely a memorandum was rejected by both the lower courts and the High Court. The court emphasized that Ex. 1 was a regular lease-deed and thus a document compulsorily registrable. Issue 2: Whether the lease is one which is compulsorily registrable. The court held that Ex. 1, being a lease-deed, is compulsorily registrable. The argument that the lease of a right to collect rents is not a lease of immovable property was negated by the definition of "immovable property" in the General Clauses Act, which includes "benefits to arise out of land." The court cited precedents to support the view that Mustajir leases are leases of immovable properties, and thus, Ex. 1 required registration under the Transfer of Property Act. Issue 3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any relief under the lease if it is held that the same is invalid for want of registration. The court considered two potential remedies for the plaintiff: 1. Compensation for use and occupation of the immovable properties concerned, which required evidence of the amount collected by the defendants. Since the plaintiff provided no such evidence, this remedy was not feasible. 2. Specific performance of the contract under Section 27A of the Specific Relief Act. The court noted that Section 27A allows for specific performance of a contract to lease immovable property even if the contract is unregistered, provided possession was delivered in part performance. The court found that possession was delivered in part performance of the contract, thus entitling the plaintiff to specific performance and recovery of the agreed sum under Ex. 1. The court concluded that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for the sum agreed to be paid in Ex. 1 by way of specific performance of the contract. The first appellate court's view that the suit was not framed as one for specific performance was deemed erroneous. The court directed that the plaintiff's suit be decreed for the claim, but each party should bear their own costs due to the plaintiff's vacillating approach to the subject matter. Conclusion: The suit is decreed in favor of the plaintiff for the recovery of the agreed sum under Ex. 1, with each party bearing their own costs throughout.
|
