SUDEEP SINGH SABHARWAL Vs. SHAHNAZ ARFI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 11.4.2012 decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff/landlord filed for possession and mesne profits for the relief of possession on an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.

(2.) BEFORE the trial Court and before this Court, the following is the undisputed position:

(3.) THE only argument which was urged on behalf of the appellant/defendant was that the appellant/defendant paid a sum of RS. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) on 18.8.2010, and therefore, it is prayed that a fresh lease came into existence on payment of such amount. In law, any lease for a period in excess of 12 months has necessarily to be by means of a registered instrument vide Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 read with Section 17(1)(b)and (d) of the Registration Act, 1908. I have repeatedly considered this aspect, and two of the judgments dealing with the issue that the tenancy of a tenanted premises is only a monthly tenancy unless there is a registered lease deed for a fresh period, are the judgments in the cases of Assocham Vs. Y.N.Bhargava 185 (2011) DLT 296 and M.C. Agrawal HUF Vs. M/s. Sahara India and Ors 183 (2011) DLT 105. I have for arriving at this conclusion relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. vs. Hede & Company, 2007 (5) SCC 614.