Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. To appropriates the contentions of the parties the relevant facts of the case are :

The entire property consisting of ground floor, first floor and second floor at B-16, Greater Kailash, New Delhi was let out to the petitioner from 1st May, 1969. This was oral tenancy accompanied by delivery of possession. It was a tenancy for a fixed period of 11 months. The agreed rent was Rs. 4000/- per month i.e. Rs. 600/- as property taxes and Rs. 3400/- as rent. The petitioner further state that the rent of the ground floor was fixed at Rs. 2000/- and the rent for the upper floors i.e. first and second floors was fixed at Rs. 2000/-. On 6th February, 1970 a memo, of lease was executed between the parties. It was signed by the petitioner and the respondent. The ground floor of the suit property was let for residence of the Managing Director of the petitioner while the first floor and Barsati floor of the property were to be used as Guest House of the petitioner-company for the residence of its guests. The father of the respondent is the owner of the property at 30, Chatar Marg, Delhi wherein the respondent is in occupation of only one room as alleged by him. The respondent examined himself and his father in support of his case. On behalf of the petitioner its Secretary Mr. B.K. Talwar was examined. Ved parkash Gupta, father of the respondent states that the respondent is in occupation of one room in property No. 30, Chatra Marg, Delhi, that he is married and has two children, that he is the Chairman of Goodwill India Ltd., National Product Ltd., Vijay Finance & Investment Ltd., Janta Traders and many others. He further states that he asked the respondent to shift to his own house, that the respondent is the owner of the suit property, that his relations with the respondent are cordial, that the entire house is not meant for his use, that they are having a common mess and that the respondent uses dinning room for his meals and sometimes sitting, room when he entertains friends. The respondent appearing as AW 2 states that he is in occupation of one room, his family consists of himself, his wife and two children and that the accommodation with him is not sufficient for his requirements. The photo copy of the lease deed dated 6th February, 1970 is marked 'A', his date of birth is 13th August, 1946. He further states that the premises were let on 1st May, 1969 and the terms of tenancy which were settled subsequently were incorporated in the lease agreement dated 6th February, 1970. The property at 30, Chatra Marg, Delhi owned by the respondent's father is a huge property consisting of two verandahs measuring 30'x8' and 20'x8', on sitting room 20'x 18', one dinning room 16'x 10', two bed rooms 20'x 20' each, third bed room 14' x 14', fourth bed room 16' x 16', Pantry, four bath rooms, one kitchen, one Puja Room measuring 12'x12', four rooms under ACC roof measuring 10' x 10', six servant quarters measuring 10' x 8' one tin shed and one cow shed. This accommodation is detailed in house tax assessment record in Ex. R.I. Mr. B.K.Talwar, R.W.1 Secretary of the petitioner company stales that the terms of tenancy were settled orally with him by the respondent, that notice of termination was agreed to be given by either party for two months, the premises were let for residence-cum-commercial purposes, the ground floor was for the residence of the Managing Director of the Company while the first and Barsati floor were to be used as Guest House of the customers of the company. He further says that the respondent-landlord does not require the suit premises for residence that he has sufficient accommodation and he wants to increase rent and to sell the property after getting it vacated. He admits that the petitioner-company does not run business of Guest-house. He also says that the suit properly on the ground floor has live rooms besides kitchen, servant quarters, open lawns, garages and similar accommodation is available on the first floor of the suit property and Barsati floor on the second floor. He further says that the oral terms of tenancy were settled initially and the lease agreement marked 'A' was executed on 6th February, 1970 and that no oral terms were settled after its execution. The receipt of notice dated 17th September, 1976 is admitted by him.

7. With this background of the powers under Section 25B(8) of the Act it is to be seen whether the impugned order of the Controller is not according to law.

8. The first contention of the petitioner tenant is that he was entitled to two months notice of eviction on the basis of term No.2 of the lease agreement dated 6th February, 1970 marked 'A'. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that oral tenancy was created for a period of 11 months with effect from 1st May, 1969 and possession was delivered to the petitioner-company, that rent was agreed at Rs.4000/-per month, he says that oral lease for less than one year was validly created by delivery of possession within him the meaning of Section 107 of the Transfer of property Act. He further says that the leave deed dated 6th February, 1970 is a memo of agreement corroborating the oral terms of tenancy settled between the parties on or about 1st May, 1969. The contention of the respondent's counsel is that the lease dated 6th February, 1970 itself creates the lease, that it bears the signatures of the petitioner and the respondent and therefore under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act this document requires registration and as it is not registered under the Indian Registration Act the same cannot be looked into in view of Section 49 of the Registration Act,1908. The question therefore is whether the lease dated 6th February, 1970 is a memorandum of agreement Corporation the oral terms of tenancy agreed to previously or it is a lease deed itself creating the lease. From the various terms of the lease deed such as terms 3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,12 & 13, it appears that the parties used the future tense while agreeing to various terms meaning thereby that these terms were not agreed at the time of initial letting on 1st May, 1969.

9. These terms do not refer to any previous oral agreement between the par-ties. As a matter of fact the lease deed itself does not mention about any previous oral tenancy agreement between the parties. It however mentions that the period of lease for 11 months started with retrospective effect from 1st May, 1969. The oral terms of the lease as pleaded in para 14 of the written statement are, "the promises were taken on lease with effect from 1st May, 1969 under oral agreement of lease accompanied with possession. It was agreed that it would be leased for a period of 11 months with effect from 1st May, 1969. It was also agreed that the lease could be terminated or extended by giving two months notice by either side after expiry of lease. The respondent agreed to pay Rs 3400/- as rent and Rs.600/- as property or house tax, total Rs. 4000/- per month besides electricity charges. The rent for ground floor was agreed to be Rs.2000/- per month and for upper floors to be Rs.2000/- per month. The premises were let out for residential and commercial purposes", some of these term find place in the lease deed dated 6th February, 1970. The new terms incorporated in this lease deed are to the effect that the leases shall pay for the filtered water and for power and light charges directly to the local authorities, that the lessee shall not sublet the provision part or whole without the written consent that he had checked the various fittings as per list attached, that he shall comply with the rules and regulations of the local authorities, that he shall not make any additions or alterations in the premises but can install air-conditioners, A coolars, cooking ranges etc , that he shall carry out at his own costs all major repairs and that the painting of the building shall be carried out by the less after every two years at his own cost. It thus appears that this is a new lease deed which creates the tenancy agreement between the parties. It may be sail that it is in supersession of the original lease created on 1st May,1969. This possible. Under Section 111(f) of the transfer of Property Act it may be that be execution of this lease deed the previous oral lease was impliedly surrendered but before the previous lease can be said to have come to an end, it must be determined whether the new lease deed executed between the parties is validly executed in accordance with law. This new lease deed 6thFebruary, 1970 creates rights between the parties. As it is not registered as required by Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act the same is not admissible in evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in fact lease of the suit premises was created under the oral agreement on 1st May, 1969 and as the lease had already been created there remained nothing for creation of another lease. He says that agreement of lease must be a document which affects an actual demise and operates as a lease. His contention is that this document does not affect actual demise and therefore does not operate as a lease. This is correct that an agreement to lease must be a document which effects an actual demise and operates as a lease (See Trivenibai and another v. Smt. Lilabai ) But reading the document i.e. lease deed dated 6th February, 1970 as a whole the irresistible conclusion is that this document created a lease between the parties effective from 1st May, 1969. The Full Bench of this Court in Chief Controlling Revenue Authority vs. Smt. Satyawati Sood and others. observed, " It is well known that parties enter into oral agreements or informal agreements. But even if all the terms are so agreed, the parties intend to reduce the agreement to a formal document. If such is the intention of the parties then it is the formal document and not the anterior oral or informal agreements which would constitute ihe legal transaction or act-in-law. This again is to be found from the intention of the parties in a particular case (Union of India vs. N.K. (P) Ltd., 2nd (1971) 1 Delhi 355). In view of the numerous complicated perceis terms of the lease with legal implications in the present case, we are of the view that the transaction of lease was entered into only by the letters in question and not by the previous oral agreement, if any." In the full Bench case this court come to the conclusion that there was never any oral agreement and the lease was created only under the letters written by the parties.

10. In the present case, It is true, that the oral tenancy is admitted but it appears that some oral terms were settled between the parties in May, 1969 and subsequently other terms were settled and therefore the lease need dated 6.2. 1970 was executed by the parties. This lease deed may be called as a new lease in supersession of the previous oral tenancy or it may be said that the oral negotiations for the creation of lease started in May, 1969 when possession was delivered and finally concluded on 6th Feb, 1970 when this lease deed was executed.