AERO CLUB Vs. DHANWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IA No. 8689/08 The applicant/plaintiff has moved this application under Section 151 of CPC for clarification of the order dated 20th March 2008 whereby this Court observed that the plaintiff has relied upon a document which plaintiff claims to be an agreement of lease. Plaintiff now claims the same is a Memorandum of understanding and not an agreement of lease.

(2.) THE document was impounded by this Court and the Registrar General of this Court was directed to adjudicate about penalty and stamp duty on the document as per law. The plaintiff claims that since it was only a Memorandum of understanding, the stamp duty has to be adjudged as applicable in case of memorandum of Understanding and the Court should clarify that it was not an agreement to lease but a Memorandum of Understanding.

(3.) NO doubt the document is styled as an Mou and it specifies terms as agreed upon between the parties and it also provides for registration of a separate lease deed. However, the plaintiff in the suit made a prayer for handing over of the vacant possession of the space booked by the plaintiff and for specific performance of this Mou. There is no prayer made by the plaintiff for directing the defendant to enter into a lease deed in terms of the Mou and then hand over the possession. The plaintiff himself treated this Mou as if it was a lease deed for the purpose of specific performance and that is why during arguments when the plaintiff was asked how can in specific performance of such a document, he can ask for possession, he took the plea that it was a lease deed, though termed as Mou. If the plaintiff wants this document to be treated as Mou alone, then plaintiff has to amend the pleadings and make a prayer for execution of a lease deed between the plaintiff and defendant qua the premises in question in terms of this Mou. The plaintiff, therefore, is at liberty to make suitable application for amendment of pleadings. If the pleadings are amended and plaintiff prays for execution of a lease deed, the document has to be treated only as Mou. The order passed by this Court on 20th March 2008 was in terms of the stand taken by the plaintiff and needs no further clarification.