1968 (1) TMI 62 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether there was a completed sub-lease between the firm and the company.
2. Whether the sub-lease required registration under the Indian Registration Act.
3. Applicability of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.
4. Specific performance of the contract under Section 27 of the Specific Relief Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether there was a completed sub-lease between the firm and the company:
The firm claimed possession based on an agreement of sub-lease evidenced by documents Ext. P.1, P.2, and P.3. The trial court held that these documents constituted an agreement for a sub-lease. However, the High Court found that these documents represented a completed lease or at least an agreement to lease, which required registration under the Indian Registration Act. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that the lease was for a period exceeding one year, thus requiring registration.

2. Whether the sub-lease required registration under the Indian Registration Act:
The firm argued that the lease did not require registration as it was not for a term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent. However, the Supreme Court found that the lease was indeed for a period exceeding one year, as the rent was to be paid for the first time for a period of fifteen months. Therefore, Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act was applicable, and the lease required registration. Since the documents were unregistered, the lease could not be enforced.

3. Applicability of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act:
The firm contended that they could claim possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The Supreme Court clarified that Section 53A is only available as a defense to a lessee and does not confer any right to claim possession or other rights on the basis of an unregistered lease. The court cited the Privy Council's decision in Probodh Kumar Das and Others v. Dantmara Tea Company Limited & Others, affirming that Section 53A cannot be used to enforce rights under an unregistered lease.

4. Specific performance of the contract under Section 27 of the Specific Relief Act:
The firm argued that the documents constituted an agreement in writing to lease the property and sought specific performance of this contract. The Supreme Court rejected this claim for three reasons:
- The plaint did not specifically claim specific performance of the contract.
- The entire contract was not in writing, as the Managing Director initially lacked authority, and the contract was completed only after the Board of Directors' resolution.
- The firm never obtained possession of the entire property, which is a requirement under Section 27 of the Specific Relief Act. The section applies only if possession of the entire property has been taken, not just part of it.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the unregistered lease could not be enforced, Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act was inapplicable for claiming rights under the unregistered lease, and the firm could not claim specific performance under Section 27 of the Specific Relief Act. Each party was directed to bear their own costs of the appeal.