1922 (3) TMI 5 - HC - Indian Laws

Uncertain terms in document prevent lease agreement; appeal allowed, suit dismissed.

The High Court held that the document presented did not constitute a concluded agreement for leasing the third floor of a building. The terms were deemed ... - Issues:Specific performance of alleged agreement for leasing third floor of building on Ballard Estate.Analysis:The plaintiff filed a suit seeking specific performance of an agreement with the defendants to lease the third floor of a building on the Ballard Estate. The agreement outlined the terms of the lease, including a monthly rent of Rs. 1500 for five years with an option for another five years, and a deposit of Rs. 4,500. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendants to execute the lease as per the agreement. However, the defendants appealed the decision.The High Court held that the document presented by the plaintiff could not be considered a concluded agreement. The terms were too uncertain to be formalized into a lease, especially with the clause 'subject to the conditions and entering into a regular lease.' This clause made entering into a regular lease a condition precedent, meaning a definite agreement was not reached. The court noted that the document was a result of preliminary negotiations, outlining some terms while leaving many others to be agreed upon later. Citing legal precedents, the court concluded that the agreement was not suitable for specific performance. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the suit was dismissed with costs.Regarding the deposit of Rs. 4,500 made by the plaintiff, the court directed the defendants to apply to the lower court under Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code for its retention. The defendants were given a fortnight after the sealing of the court decree to make this application. If no application was filed, the deposit was to be returned to the plaintiff.