LexDELHI MOTOR COMPANY AND ORS. versus U.A. BASRURKAR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
120
DELHI MOTOR COMPANY AND ORS.
v.
U.A. BASRURKAR AND ORS.
January 8. 1968
(J. C. S!ll\11, V. RAMASWAMl AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.)
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), ss. 106, 107, 53A-
Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877), s. 27A-Porrions of business pre-
mises given on sub-lease-Documents purportng to constitute sub-ltase
not re11istered-Applicabi/ity of ss. 106, 107-Enforceability of agreement
under s. 53A-Specific performanct of contract-Effect of s. 21A.
Certain documents were executed between the appellant firm and the
respond.eat company· in respect of premises df which the latter \\ra<; a tcnanl
According to the appellant these documents were intended to effect a sub-
Jcase of ~hree portions of the premises in question though in order ·10 avoid
=equences ur.der lhe Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara Rent Control Act 10 of
I 94 7 they apparently purported to cre>te a partnership.
The finn wu
actually given pos-:;cssion of two of the three portions thus given to it.
After some time the firm was dispossessed by the company of the pn>-
misrs occupied by it and it therefore filed a suit claiming delivery of pos-
session.
Jn defence the company contended that the c.iocumcnts relied
upon hy the firm did not evidence either a sub-lease or
a
partnership.
According to it there were negotiat:ons for a
partnership
\\'hich
never
fructified.
The tri•I court held that the
documents executed
by
the
par:ie) evidenced an agreement for a sub-lease and since the agreement did
not require rcg:s1rafion the firm was entitled to the reliefs claimed by it on
the basis of the agreemont.
In appeal by the company the High Court
held 1hat the documents constitu~ed a completed lease of at least an agree-
ment to lease falling within s. 2(7) of the Indian Registration Act. and
sine·~ the lease or the agreement to lease 1J.•as evidenced by documents in
Writin~ an<l they \\'ere unregistered. the lease or the a~reement to lease
could net he enforced.
On this so'e ground. the High Court "llowed the
appeal and dismissed the suit of the firm, which thereupon, >ppealed to
this Court.
HELD : (i) The three documents in qu.,.tion were relied on hv the
appellant firm itself as eviden~ of the lease and the tenns thereof: the
firm could not therefore be hea"rd to say that these documents did not
represent the comoleted lease and did not, for tha .. reason, require regi'J-
trntion. [724 C-HJ
(ii) According to the firm's case based on the said document~ ren~ in
the first inc;tance wac; paYablc to the comoanv in the shane of J Of7o of the
profit, of the firm for th'c period 1st April 1950 to 30th June 1951. There-
fore the leac;e that came into ·~~<i"-lcnce through thc.;;;c documentc; \\'as cer·
tainlv for more than a year.
Section 107 of the Tran'ifer of Pro~erty
Act 'v.·as thus clt>arlv applicahlc and q1ch a leac;c could not have hccn
\'al'dJ\· m1dc cxccnt under a reei.;;;!ercd in..;trumcnt.
Admittedly there was
no r-:(!i'itration of- the documents \vhich constituled the lc;ise. and. consc-
quen~lv. the finn cnu!d nor claim anv rir.:hto;; on the basis or this lease
evid~nc~~ hy unrcgi<;tcred documents. f725 R-FJ
(iii) ~fercly hecauc;e the 1~:.isc was for an indefinite period and related
to immovable property which vo:is not used for agricullural or manufac~
turing pllrposes it could not be held to be a lease from month to month
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
DELHI MOTOR co. v. BASRURKA!t (Bhargava, I.)
721
A
to which· s. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was applicable. There
,was nothing in the terms of the lease which showed that it was from
month to month. {725 F-Hl
c
D
F
G
H
R~m Kumar Das v. Jagadish Chandra Deb Dhabal Deb & Anr. (1952]
,S.C.R. 269, distinjlllisbed.
(iv) Section . 53A of the Transfer of Property Act is only meant to
bring about a bar against enforcement of rights by a lessor in respect of
.property of which the lessee had already taken possession, hut does not
give any right to the lessee to claim possession or to claim any other -.right
on the basis of an unregistered lease.
Section 53A is 'only ·available as
a defence to a lessee and not as conferring a right on the basis of which
1be lessee can claim rights against the lessor. [726 C-E]
·
In the present case the claim· which was put forward by the firm. in
.the plaint. could by no means be construed as a mere defence of the firm's
rights. What the firm. was actually' seeking to do was to enforce the :ri&ht•
uExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.