Can the arbitrator adjudicate any dispute about the lease agreement between the parties not contemplated by the arbitration clause?

 In the instant case, the Respondent invoked the Arbitration Clause under the Dealership Agreement and approached the Director (Marketing) of the Appellant who appointed Mr. B.L. Parihar as the sole Arbitrator. The Arbitrator, Mr. B.L. Parihar, nominated by the Director (Marketing) of the Appellant had no authority and/or jurisdiction to adjudicate any dispute pertaining to the lease agreement.

34. The Arbitral Award is liable to be set aside in so far as the same deals with disputes with regard to the Lease Agreement which are not contemplated by the Arbitration Clause in the dealership agreement and/or in other words, do not fall within the terms of the submission to Arbitration. The Arbitral award is thus liable to be set aside under Section 34(2)(a)(iv) of the 1996 Act. The decision enhancing the lease rent is patently beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration. {Para 33}

 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 837-838 OF 2022

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs M/s Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar

Author: Indira Banerjee, J.

Dated: FEBRUARY 01, 2022

Print Page

Whether tenant is bound to pay stamp duty on copy of lease agreement if it is insufficiently stamped?

 Countering the said submissions, Mr. Asan Ali Khan, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that when admittedly Exs.R1 to R8 are copies of the originals of the lease deeds executed between the petitioner and the respondent and they are for a period not exceeding 11 months, they are not compulsorily registrable and as such they can be looked into for collateral purposes. According to the learned Counsel, the copy available with the respondent need not be stamped and the original available with the petitioner alone are liable to be stamped in accordance with Indian Stamp Act; even if it is insufficiently stamped, it can be looked into for collateral purpose, namely, to ascertain the address of the premises, which is leased out and the question of insufficiency of stamp duty can be gone into only at the time of final disposal of RCOP. 
At the outset it has to be pointed out that when an agreement of lease is executed between the landlord and tenant, normally, lease agreement is prepared in duplicate i.e., both are originals, signed by both the landlord and tenant. If that being so, it cannot be contended by the respondent that the agreement available with the tenant is only a copy and not the original and therefore it need not be sufficiently stamped. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent that Exs.R1 to R8 need not be stamped as contemplated in the Indian Stamp Act but the original agreement available with the petitioner alone has to be stamped in accordance with Indian Stamp Act cannot be countenanced.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

C.R.P. (PD) No. 853 of 2010 and M.P. No. 1 of 2010

Decided On: 07.07.2010

V. Jayaraman Vs. K.A. Ubaidur Rahman

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K. Mohan Ram, J.

Print Page

Whether it is mandatory to pay stamp duty on lease agreement entered for 11 months?

 Here, in this case, the document viz., the lease agreement comes within the purview of Schedule I of Section 35(a) of the Indian Stamp Act. Though the lease agreement entered for 11 months need not be registered, for the purpose of marking the document even for collateral purpose, it should be duly stamped.Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in MANU/SC/0942/2008 : (2008) 2 MLJ 1115 (SC) (Thiruvengada Pillai Vs. Navaneethammal) has held that even if an agreement is not executed on requisite stamp paper, it is admissible in evidence on payment of duty and penalty under Section 35 or 37 of the Indian Stamp Act. Therefore, when an instrument which is not duly stamped is produced before the Court for the purpose of admitting the same in evidence, as per Section 35 of the Stamp Act, such instrument cannot be admitted in evidence and if the person who produces the document is willing to pay the stamp duty penalty, then a duty is cast upon the Court to impound the document and direct the party to pay penalty as per proviso (a) to Section 35 of the Act and follow the procedure contemplated under Section 38(1) of the Act. In case, the person refuses to pay penalty as fixed by the Court and requested the Court to send the document to the Collector for impounding and determination of penalty and also the stamp duty payable on that document, the Court has to send the document in original to the Collector as contemplated under Section 38(2) of the Stamp Act. On receipt of such document, the Collector has to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 40 of the Act."

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

C.R.P. (PD)(MD) No. 1992 of 2017 and CMP (MD) No. 10029 of 2017

Decided On: 21.06.2018

 A. Rajaram  Vs.  P. Chinnakani

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J. Nisha Banu, J.

Print Page

Whether terms of lease can be proved on basis of unregistered lease agreement?

The defendants have nowhere admitted that the lease was for a specific term of nine years. On the contrary, they have pleaded that they were tenants holding over under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act. The unregistered draft lease agreement Ex. B-2 was clearly inadmissible in evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act, except for the collateral purpose of proving the nature and character of possession of the collateral purpose of proving the nature and character of possession of the defendants. The documents Ex. B-2 was admissible under the proviso to Section 49 only for a collateral purpose of showing the nature and character of possession of the defendants. The proviso to Section 49 was however not applicable in the present case inasmuch as the terms of a lease are not a "collateral purpose" within its meaning. It follows that the unregistered draft lease agreement Ex. B-2 was inadmissible in evidence to prove the transaction of lease. It was also ineffectual to create a valid lease for a renewed term of nine years for want of registration as required under Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

C.A. No. 10041 of 1983

Decided On: 27.10.1998

Satish Chand Makhan  Vs.  Govardhan Das Byas 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.P. Sen and E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ.
Citation: AIR 1984 SC 143

Print Page

Whether lease agreement will become void if it is not registered?

 The learned Counsel then submits that the agreement is required to be compulsorily registered by virtue of provisions of Section 55 of the Act. He contends that since the agreement is not registered the tenancy is void. The argument has no force. If the tenancy is created after coming into force of the Act, it will require registration. The Section does not say that tenancy shall become void. Non registration may at the most invite penalty and lease cannot become void.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Writ Petition Nos. 4027, 4028 and 4029 of 2008

Decided On: 17.07.2009

 Janabai Govindrao Korche  Vs. Women's Education Society and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

C.L. Pangarkar, J.

Citation: 2009(5) ALLMR 926

Print Page

Whether licence is created even if document mentions payment of rent?

 From the above materials on record it is evident that the plaintiff company itself is a tenant in the suit premises and that being so, it has been rightly argued by Mr. Choudhuri, on behalf of the plaintiff company, that a tenant has got no power to transfer such right or interest to any other person. Sub-tenancy, even if there be any, can only be created by the tenant with prior consent of the landlord. It is nobody's case that such subtenancy was at all created by the appellant in favour of the respondent with prior permission or consent of the landlord or the lessor, as the case may be. A grant of exclusive possession can only be a licence and not a lease where the grantor has no power to grant a lease. An intention to enter into the legal relation of landlord and tenant cannot be imputed by law where circumstances and conduct negative such intention. It appears that both the learned first Appellate Court and learned Trial Court laid emphasis on the word 'rent' as used in Exts. C and D. It has been specifically laid down by the Supreme Court in CM. Beena and Anr. v. P.N. Ramachandra Rao, (2004)3 Supreme Court Cases 595 at page 599 (para 9) that user of the terms like 'lease' or licence', lessor' or licensor', 'rent' or licence fee' is not by itself decisive of the nature of the right created by the document and an effort should be made to find out whether the deed confers a right to possess exclusively coupled with transfer of a right to enjoy the property or what has been parted with is merely a right to use the property while the possession is retained by the owner. It has been further held that the conduct of the parties before and after the creation of relationship is of relevance for finding out their intention. In its wider sense rent means any payment made for the use of land or buildings and thus includes the payment by a licensee in respect of the use and occupation of any land or building. It has been so held by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Brtish India Corporation Ltd,, reported in AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1459 at page 1463 para 15. If the parties intend to bring into existence merely a licence and not a lease, the word 'rent' used in such case is in fact loosely used for 'fee'. It is settled law that the intention of the parties is the decisive consideration to judge whether an agreement creates between the parties the relationship of landlord and tenant or merely that of licensor and licensee and in absence of any formal document of the intention of the parties must be inferred from the circumstances and conduct of the parties. 

Calcutta High Court

Westinghouse Saxby Farmer Ltd. vs Sunil Kumar Gupta Roy on 30 March, 2005

Equivalent citations: AIR 2005 Cal 322, (2005) 3 CALLT 46 HC, 2005 (4) CHN 296

Bench: A K Bisi

Print Page

Whether lessee can remain in possession of tenanted premises when lease agreement is unregistered?

(Satish Chand v. Govardhan Das) and in the case of SMS
Tea Estates (cited supra), the Apex Court has discussed
the purpose for which such unregistered lease document
can be used. It is laid down that to ascertain nature of
possession, whether it is lawful, whether it is of lessee, the
document can be used. However, the terms and conditions
of the lease which are not enforceable in view of the
provisions of section 107 of the T.P Act cannot be read in
evidence. Thus, for collateral purpose, to ascertain nature
of possession, the possession as lessee, this document can
be read in evidence. Only to that extent the protection is
available under section 53-A of the T.P Act. The lessee

cannot be allowed to say that he is entitled to keep
possession for the period mentioned in the unregistered
document as that will amount to enforcing the terms of
transaction which is not permissible under section 107 of
the T.P Act and under Section 49 of the Registration Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
First Appeal No.1214 of 2003

The Osmanabad Janata Sahakari
Bank Ltd., 

Versus
Pandarinath Gyanba gunale

CORAM: T.V. NALAWADE, J.

Citation; 2014(6) ALLMR 250
Judgment delivered on : 1st August 2014.

Print Page

Whether a party can claim specific performance of unregistered lease agreement?

The proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act shows that such unregistered document can be used for getting specific performance of contract which is possible under Chapter II of the Specific Registration Act. It also shows that the document can also be used for the purpose of Section 53A of the T.P. Act, as amendment deleting this portion was made in the year 2001. The proviso further shows that the document can be used for collateral purpose in evidence.

28. So far as right to get specific performance as mentioned in the proviso is concerned, it can be said that the present transaction of lease does not fall under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act. By the present transaction, the demise in the property was created and under section 107 of the T.P. Act it was compulsory to register the document. In view of provision of Section 107 of the T.P. Act the transaction itself was invalid. So, in the present case there was no question of specific performance of contract under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act. In any case, no such relief was claimed by the defendant under the aforesaid document.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
First Appeal No.1214 of 2003


The Osmanabad Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs Chandresena w/o Pandharinath Gunale,

CORAM: T.V. NALAWADE, J.

 Citation: 2014(6)ALLMR250, 2014(5)BomCR9

Judgment delivered on : 1st August 2014.

Print Page

Whether obligation to get tenancy agreement is continuous in nature?

I quite see that, issue of limitation is a mixed question of fact
and law and the adjudication necessarily can only be done by the fact
The complaint petition illustrate, lastly on 22.3.2007 the
finding Court.

complainant/ respondent No.2 urged the petitioners for execution of the
document, which has not been complied with. The nob- abstant clause in
Section 55, which is a special statute in itself, is indicative that provisions
of Criminal Procedure Code and particularly Section 468 thereof will not be
The requirement of Section 55 is, so long as the tenant/
applicable.
respondent No.2 occupies the premises, the obligation flows to the
petitioners to get the document executed and registered. The offence,
therefore, certainly continues. Section 2(n) of the Criminal Procedure code
contemplate offence which constitute an omission of law for the time being
in force. It also includes any act in respect of which a complaint may be
made.
13.
Law requires the petitioners, in fact, for each continuation of
the lease period to get the document registered, which, as indicated,
having cast an obligation, failure warrants the action. There cannot be a
contest on the legal position indicated in the matter of Udai Shankar
Awasthi Vs. State of Uttar Pradeshi & anr. [ (2013) 2 Supreme Court
Cases 435 ] as referred in para 46 thereof, dealing with a reported case in

the matter of Kishan Singh Vs. Gurpal Singh ( 2010 (8) SCC 775 ). The
complaint petition of the respondent No.2, even if is filed after eviction
proceedings by the petitioners, however, the inherent right in the
respondent No.2 to take recourse to Section 55 of the Rent Act is not
whittled away or foreclosed. The complaint petition cannot be branded as
arduous proceedings.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.682 OF 2011

Rohit Dinesh Photographer Vs  The State of Maharashtra



CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.
DATED: 25th April, 2013.
Citation;2014(5) MHLJ317

Print Page

Whether tenant can invoke arbitration clause after expiry of lease agreement in eviction suit?

 A learned Judge of this Court in Smt. Penumalli Sulochana v. Harish Rawtani
has also held that the subsistence of a lease under a lease deed would only be
up to the period specified therein and once the lease deed became redundant, any
clause such as an arbitration clause contained in it also ceases to apply and
S.8 cannot be invoked by a defendant in a suit for recovery of possession filed
against a tenant. 
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO            

CRP.No.3734 of 2011  

Dated:20-11-2013 


Master Pieces Furniture Pvt. Ltd,
Vs
K. Lakshma Reddy, S/O. K.V. Ranga Reddy
Citation: AIR2014AP56, 2014(1)ALD375, 2014(1)ALT773

Print Page