CHANDRAKALA Vs. SOMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Court in Paul v. Saleena, 2004 (1) KLT 924 held that unregistered lease deeds cannot be pressed into service to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right title or interest in or to the property comprised in the document. In the instant case an unregistered lease deed was executed between the parties on 15.12.1992 leasing out the tenanted premises for a period of two years on a monthly rent of Rs. 450.00. The lease deed contained a clause whereby the rent can be revised after the expiry of two years on mutually agreed terms and if the terms cannot be mutually agreed, the rent will be increased by 25% at the end of the cycle of every two years. Landlady took up the stand that the tenant is legally obliged to pay monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 562.50 from 16.12.1994. In spite of repeated demands the tenant failed to pay rent from 1.1.1995. Registered notice dated 16.6.1995 was issued by the landlady to the tenant demanding the arrears of rent with interest. Landlady also wanted the tenanted premises for the purpose of starting a business in flour mill, curry powder and allied items.

(2.) TENANT resisted the petition contending that the tenant has no liability to pay any amount more than Rs. 450.00 per month by way of rent. Rent at the rate of Rs. 450.00 was sent by money order, but the same was refused by the landlady. Further it is also pointed out that the clause in the rent deed is unconscionable and it was executed without free consent of the tenant. Further landlady was in a dominating position and that clause was inserted at her instance. It is also stated that since the document being an unregistered one the same cannot be relied upon so as to create any right in favour of the landlady. Further, it was pointed out that at best it can be used only for collateral purpose.

(3.) LANDLADY took up the matter in appeal. Appeal was dismissed. Appellate Court rejected the claim of the landlady for enhanced rent on the basis of the various clauses in the unregistered lease deed. Appellate Authority also noticed that no steps were taken by the landlady for revision of rent. Court noticed that mutual consultation is a precondition before invoking the second limb of the clause relating to revision of rent. It is stated that only when mutual consultation fails second limb of the clause would apply. In view of the above mentioned circumstances Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal.