Reliance Infratel Ltd vs Bal Kishan Gupta
2012 Latest Caselaw 2723 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                   Date of Judgment:25.04.2012

+     C.R.P. 171/2011

      RELIANCE INFRATEL LTD                 ..... Petitioner
                      Through Mr. Rohit Jain, Adv.
               versus

      BAL KISHAN GUPTA                           ..... Respondent
                   Through            Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr.
                                      Advocate with Mr. Niraj Singh,
                                      Adv.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

CM No.6977/2012 ( u/O 22 R.4 PC)

There is no opposition to the prayer made in this application. The

legal representatives of the deceased respondents are taken on record.

Amended memo of parties is already on record.

Application disposed of.

C.R.P. 171/2011 & CM No. 22141/2011

1 Order impugned is dated 06.09.2011; the legal issue raised and

answered in the impugned order was to the effect that if the original

document containing the arbitration clause which in this case was an un-

registered lease deed is inadmissible in evidence, the arbitration clause

contained therein could also not be read.

2 The petitioner is aggrieved by this finding. His contention is that

although admittedly the lease deed dated 01.04.2003 was an

unregistered document yet it was a lease which had been executed

between the parties for a period of 20 years. Contention is that in view

of a judgment of a Bench of this Court reported in 97 (2002) DLT 767

Trans World Finance & Real Estte Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India,

even an unregistered lease deed can be looked into for collateral purpose

and the existence of the arbitration agreement or otherwise is one such

purpose for which such an agreement can be relied upon.

3 The impugned order has noted a subsequent judgment of a Bench

of this Court reported as 155 (2008) DLT 221 National Textile

Corporation Limited and Industries Vs. Ashwal Vaderra wherein the

Court had inter-alia noted as follows:-

"It is settled law that in case of lease of immovable property if the lease is for a period of one year or more lease deed is required to be compulsorily registered. The agreement relied upon by the petitioner is an unregistered. Even otherwise this agreement exhausted itself in 1980 and after 1980 there was no written agreement between the parties. After 1980 premises remained in action of the petitioner on the basis of a lease which was created from time to time and renewed from time to time as two months. The court cannot looked into or rely upon an unregistered document which proposes to create lease of one year or more then one year. If a document is

inadmissible because of its nonregistration or because of its not having proper stamp duty or its terms are inadmissible including the one which provides by an arbitration between the parties. An arbitration agreement can be enforced only along with the contract between the parties and such a contract must be a valid contract., admissible under law. If a contract is not admissible in law every clause of that is inadmissible in law including arbitration clause."

4 In the facts of the judgment in National Textile Corporation

Limited and Industries (supra), the written lease deed had come to an

end and a new oral lease deed had been relied upon; the Court had noted

that the arbitration clause which finds mention in the earlier lease deed

cannot be invoked.

5 A similar contention was also addressed by a Bench of this Court

in 68 (1997) DLT 761 Vardhaman Spinning and General Mills Vs.

Veena Kumar Wadhawan wherein also the Court had noted that the

arbitration clause itself would perish with the determination of the

original lease deed and cannot be relied upon by the defendant. This

ratio had again been reaffirmed in RSA No. 104/2010 Union of India Vs.

Roshan Lal Makkar decided on 02.12.2010.

6 So also in the instant case. The averments made in the present suit

have been perused. This is a suit for possession. Para 9 categorically

states that the plaintiff did not wish to continue with the tenancy and

therefore vide a legal notice dated 18.05.2010, he had terminated the

lease of the defendant by giving him one month notice which was

received by the defendant on 22.05.2010 as is evident from the A.D.

card. The unregistered lease having been determined by the aforenoted

notice and having come to a close, the arbitration clause contained in the

said document perished along with the determination of this lease; this

factual legal position was rightly construed and considered by the court

below. In fact after this lease of 01.04.2003 there was an addendum

agreement executed between the parties in February, 2008 wherein

clause V specifically stipulated that in case of determination of this

lease, the security amount shall be released to party No. 3; this

document pre-supposed that in the eventuality that the lease is

determined, the security amount shall be released by party No. 1 to party

No. 3.

7 The impugned judgment in no manner calls for any interference.

Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.

                                             INDERMEET KAUR, J
APRIL        25, 2012
A