1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.647 OF 2006 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.80 OF 2000 IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.134 OF 1994 (in the Court of Additional Sub Judge 1, Cochin) Shree Diamond Centre Premises Co-op.So. ...Applicants Vs. The Board of Trustees of Cochin Port Trust ...Respondents (Orig. Plaintiffs) And M/s. New Dholera Shipping and Trading Co. Ltd. ...Respondents (Orig.Defendant) Mr.R.U.Singh i/b. Mr. Mr. Rohit Shetty for Applicant Mr.U.J . Makhija i/b. Mulla & Mulla Co., for Plaintiffs None for Defendant CORAM: SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 22 ND SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C. 1. The Respondent No.1 has obtained a decree in the above Suit on 23 rd July, 1994 in the Court of the Additional Sub Judge 1, Cochin. Respondent No.1 has levied attachment on the immovable property of Respondent No.2 (the Defendants in the Suit/Judgment Debtors) on 29 th August, 2005. This 2 application is filed by the Applicants to raise the attachment. The Applicants claim title/tenancy. The Applicants must show their title to be able to have the attachment raised on their property. The predecessor in title of Respondent No.2 had conveyed the said property to Respondent No.2 under the Conveyance dated 22 nd May, 1972. In clause 7 of the Conveyance the property conveyed has been described as land admeasuring 3175 sq. yds., bearing Survey Nos.15 and 19 parts, which was at that time leased to one Diamond Silicate Company. 2. The registered Agreement of Lease dated 14 th January, 1982 is shown to have been executed between Respondent No.2 and the partners of the said Diamond Silicate Company. In a Suit filed was by the partners of the said Company being Suit No.512 of 1982 in this Court. The Consent Terms came to be executed between the said partners as the builder/developer of the said land and Respondent No.2 on 16 th April, 1982. However, well prior to the Consent Terms, those partners have sought to put up construction on the Suit plot of land and obtained two IODs dated 10 th September, 1980 and 2nd February, 1982. A building came to be constructed and certain unit holders have been given units. The lease of land in favour of these parties has not been registered. The Consent Terms, which 3 were to operate as lease has also not been registered and no stamp duty has been paid thereon. The title of Respondent No.2, therefore, did not come to be transferred to the builders/partners of Diamond Silicate Company shown as Lessees. 3. It is contended on behalf of the Applicants that this was to be a monthly lease and hence, was not registrable. The lease was for a period of 99 years. Only the lease rent was payable monthly. Such lease is not a monthly lease as contemplated under the Bombay Rent Control Act. It is in respect of an open plot of land on which a building has been constructed. It is not a tenanted premises within a building. Such lease is compulsorily registrable for transfer of title under the Transfer of Property Act read with the Registration Act. That having not been done the lease/transfer cannot rely upon either the Consent Terms or the Agreement to Lease to claim title to the land. 4. Mr. Makhija states that even the lease rent of Rs.900/- p.m has never been paid. 5. Hence, the title of Respondent No.2 has remained with Respondent No.2. That has been attached. The title of the Applicant is not seen. Attachment cannot be raised. 4 6. As the Record and Proceeding in the papers have not been traced, Mr. Makhija has tendered copies of the Chamber Summons and proceedings. The file shall be reconstructed. 7. The Chamber Summons is dismissed. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)