AMARABHA SENGUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure directed against an order, dated 16. 4. 88 of the Learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta, in Ejectment Suit No. 403 of 1983. By the impugned order the Learned Judge impounded a document which the Learned Judge held is a document creating lease of an immovable property and is not sufficiently stamped. ( 2 ) THE document in question which we have examined relates to lease of a room or apartment in the second floor of premises No. 8, Camac Street, Calcutta for five (5) years in favour of M/s.-Kirloskar Brothers-Ltd. (the petitioner-defendant) with effect from 1. 9. 76. But the document itself is dated 28. 7. 77 and is styled as a Lease Agreement. ( 3 ) ADMITTEDLY the leases was put in possessive of the demised premises on or before 1. 9. 76. There was no written agreement at that time relating to the tenancy. The document under consideration contains stipulations and agreements for and by both parties as to the amount of monthly rents payable by the Lessee, covenants on the part of the Lessee to pay the monthly rents and also to pay other amounts as conditions of the lease, and covenants on the part of the Lessors also as to what the Lessors shall do. ( 4 ) IN Clause I of the document it is specifically mentioned that the Lessee shall pay the monthly rents and service charges, etc. , "in consideration of the Lessors having granted unto the Lessee a lease of the said premises more particularly described in the schedule annexed hereto for a period of 5 (five) years commencing on and from 1st September, 1976". ( 5 ) ON the basis of the above recital it was forcefully contended by the Learned Lawyer appearing for the petitioners that the document by itself did not create or effect any lease but it is only a memorandum recording therein the fact of the lease having been granted in the past with effect from 1. 9. 76. ( 5 ) ON the basis of the above recital it was forcefully contended by the Learned Lawyer appearing for the petitioners that the document by itself did not create or effect any lease but it is only a memorandum recording therein the fact of the lease having been granted in the past with effect from 1. 9. 76. It is submitted by the Learned Advocate appearing for the respondents that the document containing various covenants on the part of the Lessors and the Lessee is nothing short of a lease, although there is a recital stating that the lease had been granted with effect from 1. 9. 76. It is also contended that even if the possession of the demised premises was delivered earlier on or before 1. 9. 76, the lease was completed by execution of the document, dated 28. 7. 77 which contains various other conditions and covenants of the lease. It is submitted that the document on the face of it comes within the purview of lease as defined in Section 2 (16) of the Indian Stamp Act, and that the fact of delivery of possession earlier will not make any difference. In support of his contention the Learned Advocate relies upon the Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in AIR 1972 Delhi 171. ( 6 ) WE have carefully considered the submission of both parties. We are of the view that the document in question is a Lease Deed required to be stamped under the Indian Stamp Act. This document is not a mere record or memorandum of a past event creating a lease. ( 7 ) IT is clear from a reading of the document that even if the Lessee was physically put in possession of the property in September, 1976, the terms and conditions of the lease had not been settled and agreed to earlier than 28. 7. 77 when the impounded document was made. The lease for 5 years was finally completed by execution of the impounded document, even though pursuant to some tentative arrangements possession of the property might have been delivered to the Lessee in or before September, 1976. 7. 77 when the impounded document was made. The lease for 5 years was finally completed by execution of the impounded document, even though pursuant to some tentative arrangements possession of the property might have been delivered to the Lessee in or before September, 1976. ( 8 ) IN our view, the document in question imposing as it does obligations en both parties and recording undertakings of both parties relating to the demised property creates a lease of the property within the meaning of the T. P. Act. That apart, as the document contains a written undertaking by the Lessee to pay the rent, it is a lease within the meaning of Section 2 (16) (b) of the Indian Stamp Act. ( 9 ) BY this document the tenant gave a written undertaking to pay the rent, and of that ground alone and even leaving aside all other considerations, it must be held that the document is a lease within the meaning of the Indian Stamp Act and is, therefore, required to be stamped under that Act. ( 10 ) ON the aforesaid premises the document is required to be stamped. The learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta, committed no error of law by impounding the document. ( 11 ) WE accordingly dismiss this revisional application. No order as to costs. Sachi Kanta Hazari, J. I agree. Application dismissed.