MANISH ANAND Vs. RAMNIWAS GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenge is made to the order dated 14.10.2011 whereby an application preferred by the defendant/petitioner under Section 151 CPC is rejected by the Court below. The singular contention advanced by Shri Katare, learned counsel for the petitioner is that Annexure C/1 filed by the respondent is a lease deed and Court below has erred in law in only impounding the document for the purpose of proper stamping but failed to see that the said lease deed is required to be registered. Shri Katare, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on (Sitaram Vs. Shankarlal,1986 JabLJ 224) and (Khemchand Vs. Laxman Prasad Shrimali,1992 2 WN 26) to submit that the said document cannot be looked into for the purpose of evidence by the Court below.

(2.) Per contra, Shri Shri Bhardawaj submits that bare perusal of Annexue C/1 would show that it is not a lease deed, at the best it is an agreement defining terms of tenancy and by no stretch of imagination it cannot be said to be a 'Lease'. By placing reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court rendered in W.P No.2017/2008 (Smt. Kamla Devi Vs. Vishnudas) Shri Bhardawaj submits that this Court has dealt with the facet of 'Lease' and came to hold that the said agreement does not fall within the ambit of 'Lease' . He further submits that since that the document is not a lease deed and, therefore, question of registration of the document would not arise. He also relied on the recent judgment of Shalini Shyam Shetty and another vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, 2010 8 SCC 329 to submits that this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is not required to interfere in an order which does not suffer from any procedural impropriety, perversity or illegality.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.