M. Basheer vs Remani Gopalan on 16 January, 2014
42) If we examine the pleadings and evidence in this case, as
rightly submitted by Shri C.Varghese Kuriakose learned counsel for
the respondent-landlady, there is no transaction independent of the
unregistered lease deed. Therefore, even if the document has not
been produced by both sides, they have mentioned about the
R.C.R.Nos.66 & 69/2013
-:38:-
existence of the lease deed in the pleadings and the tenants are fully
relying upon the said lease deed to explain the terms of the lease like
the initial period of lease, its renewal and with regard to the payment
of enhanced amount of rent by 10% , it cannot be said that there is a
transaction independent of the said unregistered lease deed.
Therefore, even though the same is not produced in evidence, it
cannot help to advance the contentions of the petitioners. Thus, in the
light of the dictum laid down in Anthony's case [(2000) 6 SCC 394],
Samir Mukherjee's case [(2001) 5 SCC 259], K.B.Saha's case
[(2008) 8 SCC 564] and M/s. Cannanore Drug House case [2013
KHC 2518] the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel cannot be
accepted. Hence, we are of the view that the tenants are not entitled
for the benefit of Section 11(9) of the Act.