Demise in presenti and possession-based lease term upheld; later compromises and rent-control change did not defeat enforcement.

A lease deed creating a demise in presenti was treated as operative from the date possession was delivered, because the contractual scheme linked the rent and term to delivery of possession rather than execution alone. Section 110 of the Transfer of Property Act was held inapplicable on the facts, and the lessee was entitled to possession on that basis. Later rent-control developments and compromise arrangements between the respondents did not defeat enforcement of the lease, as the doctrine of frustration did not displace rights already created and a compromise between third parties could not bind the appellant. The appellant's right to recover possession was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the lease period under the agreement commenced from the date of execution or from the date when possession of the theatre was delivered, and whether the appellant was entitled to possession on that basis; (ii) Whether the later rent-control regime and the respondents' compromise arrangements defeated the appellant's right to enforcement of the lease.

Issue (i): Whether the lease period under the agreement commenced from the date of execution or from the date when possession of the theatre was delivered, and whether the appellant was entitled to possession on that basis.

Analysis: The agreement was held to be a demise in presenti and not a mere agreement to lease. The stipulation in the document required the landlord to take steps to obtain and deliver possession, and the rent and term were linked to delivery of possession. Section 110 of the Transfer of Property Act was treated as inapplicable on the facts because the contractual scheme showed that the period of lease was to run from the date possession was made over, not from the date of execution.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to possession under the lease, with the lease term commencing from delivery of possession.

Issue (ii): Whether the later rent-control regime and the respondents' compromise arrangements defeated the appellant's right to enforcement of the lease.

Analysis: The Court treated the later statutory impediment as no longer preventing relief, and held that the contract had not become incapable of enforcement in the manner suggested below. The doctrine of frustration did not displace the appellant's rights under a demise already created, and the compromise between the respondents could not affect the appellant, who was not a party to it. The subsequent expiry of the later lease arrangement also removed any subsisting right of the second respondent to remain in possession as against the appellant.

Conclusion: The appellant's right to enforce the lease and recover possession was not defeated.

Final Conclusion: The appellant succeeded in establishing a present leasehold right enforceable against the respondents, and the decree below was set aside in order to give effect to that right.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the instrument creates a demise in presenti and the contractual terms show that the lease term is to begin upon delivery of possession, the lessee's right to possession cannot be denied by treating the document as a mere executory agreement or by invoking later compromises between third parties.

---