Registered lease terms and proof of loss controlled the rent and damages dispute, limiting recovery to enforceable compensation.

A registered lease cannot be contradicted or varied by an unregistered lease deed or oral evidence, so the rent remained enforceable at Rs. 40,000 per month and could not be raised to Rs. 60,000 per month on the basis of the unregistered document. On damages, a contractual clause for Rs. 6,000 per day did not justify automatic award without proof of loss or market rate; under Section 74 of the Contract Act, only reasonable compensation could be granted. The decree was therefore modified to confine recovery to the registered rent with consequential adjustment and interest.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the rent for the premises could be fixed at Rs. 60,000 per month on the basis of an unregistered lease deed, despite the two registered lease deeds showing a total rent of Rs. 40,000 per month; (ii) Whether damages at Rs. 6,000 per day could be awarded from 01.07.2008 onwards merely on the basis of the contractual clause, without proof of actual loss.

Issue (i): Whether the rent for the premises could be fixed at Rs. 60,000 per month on the basis of an unregistered lease deed, despite the two registered lease deeds showing a total rent of Rs. 40,000 per month.

Analysis: The terms of a written contract, once reduced into registered documents, cannot be varied by oral evidence or by an unregistered instrument so as to contradict, alter, or add to the registered terms. A lease for a term exceeding one year required registration, and an unregistered document could not be received in evidence to affect the transaction. The attempted reliance on the unregistered lease deed to raise the rent to Rs. 60,000 per month was therefore legally impermissible, and there could be no estoppel against statute.

Conclusion: The rent could not be fixed at Rs. 60,000 per month on the basis of the unregistered lease deed; the legally enforceable rent remained Rs. 40,000 per month.

Issue (ii): Whether damages at Rs. 6,000 per day could be awarded from 01.07.2008 onwards merely on the basis of the contractual clause, without proof of actual loss.

Analysis: A stipulation in the nature of a penalty or pre-estimated compensation does not automatically entitle the claimant to the stated amount. Section 74 of the Contract Act permits only reasonable compensation not exceeding the amount named, and proof of loss remains material where no evidence is led to show the actual rate of mesne profits or damages. In the absence of evidence showing loss or market rate, the stipulated amount of Rs. 6,000 per day could not be mechanically awarded.

Conclusion: Damages at Rs. 6,000 per day could not be awarded on the contractual clause alone without proof of loss.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the substantive challenges to the enhanced rent and the daily damages, and the impugned decree was modified to confine recovery to rent at Rs. 40,000 per month with consequential adjustment and interest.

Ratio Decidendi: The terms of a registered lease cannot be varied by an unregistered document or oral evidence, and a stipulated damages clause does not justify automatic award of compensation without proof of loss under Section 74 of the Contract Act.

---