LOKASHAH JAIN UDOYOG MANDIR LTD Vs. KALOORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil regular first appeal by the plaintiff Lokashah Jain Udyog Mandir Ltd. , a registered company under voluntary liquidation through its liquidators, against the judgment and decree of Senior Civil Judge, Jodhpur dismissing its suit on the ground that the agreement of lease on which the suit was founded was compulsorily registrable but it was not registered.

(2.) BY this agreement dated the 2nd January, 1950 the defendant-respondent. Kalooram obtained a lease from the plaintiff of the right to run a printing press for a period of three years together with the entire machinery, types, furniture etc. which was part and parcel of the press. It was stipulated between the parties that the defendant would pay a sum of Rs. 4511/- annually for the right he had acquired. It was further agreed between them that this agreement was to last for a period of there years certain on either side and that if the defendant should give up the contract before the stipulated period of the three years, he would be responsible for reimbursing the plaintiff for such loss as might be caused to it thereby. A list of the entire machinery, types, furniture etc. was prepared, and signatures of the defendant were obtained thereon, and it was also agreed that the defendant would return certain quantities of unused types as well as used types, which had been given over to him, or their price at the end of the expiry of the lease. Another important condition of the agreement was that liberty was reserved for the defendant to be able to remove the printing machines to any other place in the city of Jodhpur (where the press was situated) provided that the defendant would bring the machines back to such place as the plaintiff might desire. Yet another condition was that in case the defendant should think it fit to hire another house for carrying on the business of the press, then such alternative accommodation should be obtained with the consent of the directors of the plaintiff company and the rent note therefor executed in the name of the plaintiff company and the defendant would continue to pay the rent on behalf of the plaintiff, and if he failed to do so, he would be responsible for compensation to the plaintiff for such losses as might be caused to it. It was also agreed between the parties that the defendant would pay all expenses himself for the running of the press including the repairs to the machinery and the salary of the staff and the rent for the house in which the press was situated. There were certain other stipulations mentioned in the agreement but we do not consider it necessary to refer to them for the purposes of this appeal.

(3.) THE same view appears to have been adopted in S. P. K. N. Subramanian Vs. M. Chidambaram Servai (3 ). This was a case of a machinery installed by a tenant for running a cinema in the premises which belonged to another. It was held that if the attachment was merely for the beneficial enjoyment of the chattel itself, then it remained a chattel, even though fixed for the time being so that it may be enjoyed. It was further observed that an engine installed in a factory may be immovable property or it may be chattel and in deciding whether or not a transaction relating to an engine is a transaction relating to immovable property, one is entitled to have regard not merely to the nature of the attachment by which the engine was fixed on the ground but also to the circumstances in which it came to be fixed, the title of the person fixing it in the immovable property, and the object of the transaction by which the engine was transferred. As in this case, the tenants installed an engine as a part of the cinema in the premises obtained by them on lease from another not with the intention of making a permanent improvement but for the object of utilising it so long as they had the use of the premises and selling it if and when their lease terminated, it was held that the suit bond should not be deemed to be one relating to the immovable property.