JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. Facts of the case as appears from the brief and from the submissions of the learned senior counsels is that the petitioner is the owner of the house let out to the opposite party No.1 which is a Government of India Company registered under the Company’s Act. Basing on the request of the opposite party No.1 (Company) on 23.03.1998 an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the National Insurance Company Ltd. for letting out of the 1st Floor of the Building situated over the plot No.794 at Saheed Nagar for opening of Bhubaneswar Divisional Office-II. The period of tenure as agreed was from 23.03.1998 to 23.03.2001 but with a stipulation that the period of tenancy may be extended upto 22.03.2004 on mutual agreement on enhancement of rent @ 15% of the prevailing rate and at the time of execution of the agreement monthly rent was fixed at Rs.38,208/-(Rupees Thirty-Eight Thousand Two Hundred Eight only) for an area of 3798 Sq.ft. (2) After the expiry of the tenure period, since the opposite parties went on occupying the rented building of the petitioner, the petitioner requested the opposite parties for renewal of the tenancy and on 14.10.2003, petitioner requested the opposite party No.2 for renewal of the tenancy agreement subject to monthly rent @ Rs.1,350/-(Rupees One thousand three hundred fifty only) per Sq.ft. and service charges at appropriate rate. (3) There was no response from the opposite parties even though they were occupying the rented premises and as such on 12.03.2004 the petitioner sent a letter to the opposite party No.2 as to let him know if the opposite party-Company is vacating the premises on or before 23.03.2004 also indicating therein that in the event the opposite party-company is not vacating the rented premises then it was requested to pay @22% per sq.ft. per month along with service charges at an enhanced rate @ 15% over and above the present service charges. Petitioner issued another reminder on 1.06.2014 showing his intention to go for renewal. On 25.08.2004 the opposite party No.2 intimated the petitioner to submit the consent letter to share the lease agreement registration cost 50:50 basis i.e.50% of the Registration cost to be borne by Land Lord and 50% of the registration cost to be borne by the Insurance Company. Petitioner issued another reminder on 1.06.2014 showing his intention to go for renewal. On 25.08.2004 the opposite party No.2 intimated the petitioner to submit the consent letter to share the lease agreement registration cost 50:50 basis i.e.50% of the Registration cost to be borne by Land Lord and 50% of the registration cost to be borne by the Insurance Company. On receipt of the same petitioner intimated the Company that registration of the agreement of tenancy is not compulsory and therefore the petitioner requested to opposite parties not to insist on the same. (4) At this stage on 1.11.2004, the opposite party No.2 intimated the petitioner its consent / approval for the enhancement of the rent of the premises and the rent to be enhanced to Rs.13.50 paisa per Sqft. The rent for the whole area would be Rs.51,273/-per month w.e.f.24.03.2004 for 6(3+3) years with 15% increase in the rent after every three years with a condition however the release of the same would be subject to execution and registration of the lease agreement again on the condition for sharing stamp duty and registration expenses by 50:50 basis. (5) It is contended by petitioner that even though it intimated its intention for execution of the agreement by its letter dtd.6.12.2004 yet the opposite party did not pay any heed to it, on the other hand went on occupying the rented premises without releasing the rent as agreed even. It is further alleged by the petitioner that the petitioner intimated the opposite parties to inform its date of vacation of the rented premises which also remained unheeded thus while intimating as above the petitioner also communicated the opposite parties to vacate the rented premises and requested for clearing the area with 18% interest and all arrears till vacating the premises and a sum of Rs.1,39,503/-(Rupees One lakh thirty-nine thousand five hundred three only) is to be paid towards three months notice period. (6) While the matter stood thus, the opposite party No.2 intimated the petitioner that they are not in a position to release the arrear for non-registration of lease agreement. And while intimating the above opposite party No.2 for the first time by letter dtd.30.04.2008 intimated the petitioner its intention of vacating the office premises by 10.06.2008. (6) While the matter stood thus, the opposite party No.2 intimated the petitioner that they are not in a position to release the arrear for non-registration of lease agreement. And while intimating the above opposite party No.2 for the first time by letter dtd.30.04.2008 intimated the petitioner its intention of vacating the office premises by 10.06.2008. The petitioner responded to the said letter by asking the opposite party No.2 to make the payment at the revised rate before vacating the premises. In the meanwhile the opposite party No.2 again on 10.07.2008 intimated the petitioner that they are vacating the premises by the end of July, 2008. (7) The Company ultimately vacated the premises of the petitioner on 2.09.2008 without clearing the arrear rent. It is on this behavior of the opposite party, the petitioner files the writ petition claiming the following : “Under the circumstances it is prayed that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to Issue a Rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why they should not pay the petitioner the rent of Rs.91,15,200/-@Rs.45/-per Sqft. For the period from 23.03.2004 to 2.09.2008, Rs.15 lakhs towards compensation, three months’ rent in lieu of notice period and interest @ 18% per annum on the aforesaid amount ; and if the Opposite parties fail to show cause or insufficient cause make the said Rule absolute:” (8) Per contra the opposite parties on their appearance filed a counter inter-alia contending that they had taken the concerned building under the lease agreement for a period of three years from 23.03.1998 to 23.03.2001 with an option for renewal for another three years subject to enhancement of rent by 15%. It is next contended by the opposite parties that they had never agreed for renewing the rent @13.50 paisa per Sqft. per month on the other hand they had agreed for revision @ Rs.13 per Sqft. per month. (9) The opposite parties controverted the claim of the petitioner on the plea that the decision of their Regional Estate Committee fixing the rent @ 12.50 paisa per Sqft. per month was not accepted by the petitioner and further the petitioner’s rent offer was not inconsonance with the other portion of the same premises which was let out to the United India Insurance Company limited who were paying the rent @ Rs.12 per Sqft. at the relevant point of time. per month was not accepted by the petitioner and further the petitioner’s rent offer was not inconsonance with the other portion of the same premises which was let out to the United India Insurance Company limited who were paying the rent @ Rs.12 per Sqft. at the relevant point of time. It is admitted by the opposite parties that in considering the demand of the landlord fixing the rent @Rs.20 per Sqft. w.e.f.22.03.2004, the opposite parties recommended Rs.13.50 paisa per Sqft. as rent in their meeting dtd.17.06.2004. It is on the basis of the said minutes of the meeting the petitioner was intimated with the rent to be fixed and the increase thereafter as borne in Annexure-7. It is next contended by the opposite parties that such offer was made to the petitioner vide letter dtd.01/02.11.2004 alongwith a copy of the draft agreement seeking an early response from the petitioner with further intimation that the arrear can only be released after the execution and registration of the lease agreement. It is alleged by the opposite parties that even though the petitioner landlord acknowledged the receipt of such letter but did not respond to the request of the opposite parties in the above manner. It is further submitted by the opposite parties that in spite of their commitment vide Annexure-C/1, the petitioner did not cooperate in the matter as a consequence of which they remained handicapped. (10) During course of argument Mr.Y. Dash, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner restricted his claim in the writ petition to the rate of rent as agreed by the opposite parties and claimed for release of the rent @13.50 paisa per Sqft. per month with enhancement provision @ 15% beyond the extended three years period alongwith appropriate interest and service charges as agreed. As the petitioner has a limited prayer to the extent of rent as agreed between the parties vide Annexure-7 as well as Annexure-C/3 without entering into any other controversies I decide the matter of entitlement of rent on the basis of undisputed materials available on the record. (11) Heard the parties, there is no denial to the fact that the opposite parties were a tenant in the premises of the petitioner on the agreed terms available under the initial agreement entered into between the parties appearing at Annexure-1. (11) Heard the parties, there is no denial to the fact that the opposite parties were a tenant in the premises of the petitioner on the agreed terms available under the initial agreement entered into between the parties appearing at Annexure-1. There is also no denial to the fact that pursuant to the demand of enhancement of the rent, the opposite parties through their minutes of meeting agreed for the rent @ Rs.13.50 paisa per Sqft. on 3798 Sqft. per month w.e.f.24.03.2004 for six years with an additional agreement for paying the rent with 15% increase in the rent after every three years as available at Annexure-7 as well as Annexure-C/1 to the counter affidavit at the instance of the opposite parties. (12) There is also no disagreement between the parties that the house under the occupation of the opposite parties was ultimately vacated on 2.09.2008. From the agreement under Annexure-1, it appears that the tenancy agreement was executed for three years commencing from 23.03.1998 and the rent as agreed was to be paid @ Rs.7 as rent and Rs.1.75 paisa per Sqft. as service charges. The lease agreement contained a clause for renewal for another three years subject to increase of rent by 15% in terms and condition stated there under. By virtue of the agreement entered into by the parties, the lease period came to an end on 22.03.2001 on expiry of three years period. (13) Considering the vacation of the house ultimately on the 2nd September, 2008 and considering the limited prayer at the instance of the petitioner and admission to the document vide Annexure 7 as well as Annexure C/1 this Court proceeds for deciding the entitlement of the petitioner. There is no dispute that the initial lease agreement between the parties was an unregistered one and there is no law requiring a rent agreement /lease agreement compulsory registration. (14) From perusal of the lease agreement under Annexure-1 it is amply clear that the parties while entering into the initial agreement had agreed for extending the lease period beyond 23.03.2001 at an enhancement of 15% rent as agreed under clause “F” of the agreement. (14) From perusal of the lease agreement under Annexure-1 it is amply clear that the parties while entering into the initial agreement had agreed for extending the lease period beyond 23.03.2001 at an enhancement of 15% rent as agreed under clause “F” of the agreement. Accepting the petitioner’s plea that there was no need for entering into any registered agreement, petitioner since agreed to a particular rate i.e. 15% increase in the rent in case of renewal of rent for another three years w.e.f. 23.03.2001 and since the house was under occupation of the opposite parties beyond this period I held the petitioner is entitled to at the minimum 15% enhancement on the rent beyond the period w.e.f.23.03.2001 for next three years which is to be expired on 22.03.2004. (15) Now coming to decide the question of rent from 23.03.2004 as appearing from the documents at Annexure-C/1 the opposite parties in their minutes of meeting dtd.17.06.2004 promised as follows : “Minutes of the meeting held on 17.06.2004 with the landlord of Bhubaneswar DO-II premises at Bhubaneswar Regional Office. Earlier on 15.4.2004, the Regional Estate Committee in a meeting with the landlord of BBSR. DO-II premises offered a rate of Rs.12.50 per Sq.ft and the landlord refused to accept the said offer. Again today REC of Bhubaneswar RO met the Landlord of Bhubaneswar DO-II in the chamber of the Regional Manager and discussed with him on the fixation of rent of Bhubaneswar DO-II premises w.e.f. the date of renewal i.e.22.03.2004. The REC was represented by : 1. Mr. P. Nayak, RM, BBRO 2. Mr. D. Sethy, Dy. Manager, BBRO 3. Mr. R.K. Sahu, -do 4. Mr. M.A.A. Baig, Sr. DM, BBSR, DO-II 5. Mr. N.K. Rungta, AM, IA&ID, Kolkata The Landlord Sri Raj Dhawan came alongwith his son and participated in discussion. The landlord asked for Rs.20/-per Sq.ft. as rent w.e.f.22.03.2004 which was not acceptable to the REC. BBRO as the demand it self was exorbitant and too high. It is to be noted that the company is paying rent @ Rs.10.60 ps. Per sq.ft. It is also understood from the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. another tenant in the 2nd floor of the said premises, that they are paying Rs.12/-per sq.ft. as rent to the same landlord. It is to be noted that the REC had recommended for Rs.12.50 per sq.ft. as rent of BBSR. Per sq.ft. It is also understood from the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. another tenant in the 2nd floor of the said premises, that they are paying Rs.12/-per sq.ft. as rent to the same landlord. It is to be noted that the REC had recommended for Rs.12.50 per sq.ft. as rent of BBSR. DO-II premises which the landlord refused to accept. Considering the importance of the area, market rate of rent, shortage of office premises in the habitable locality of the city and the rent being paid by another Public Sector insurer, the team offered Rs.13.50 per sq.ft. w.e.f. the date of renewal to which the landlord did not agree at the outset and rather asked us to vacate the premises. After a prolonged persuasion the landlord appealed the REC, BBRO to increase the rent further as he is getting better offers. The REC team prevailed upon the landlord to accept the offer of Rs.13.50 per sq.ft. as rent. The landlord finally told the team to recommend Rs.13.50 per sq.ft. to Head Office with an appeal for consideration of some enhancements. Taking all the aforementioned factors into consideration the team recommends for acceptance Rs.13.50 per sq.ft. as per the verbal consent of the landlord. (P. Nayak) (R.K. Sahu) (D. Sethy) RM, BBRO Dy. Manager, BBRO Dy. NManager, BBRO” (16) As a consequence of the above minutes of meeting the opposite parties in consideration of the case of the petitioner in the matter of enhancement of the rent issued a letter on 1.11.2004 as appearing at Annexure-7 of the writ petition with regard to the rent communicated. The contents of the said letter reads as follows : “National Insurance Company Limited Bhubaneswar Divisional Office II Plot No.-794, Sahidnagar, Janpath, Bhubaneswar-751007 PHONE-(0674)-2545389, 2546447 FAX-(0674)-2546416 Our Ref. 163700/Estage/SKS/MAB/1535/2004 Date:01.11.2004 To Sri Raj Dhawan, 794, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar Dear Sir, Re: Enhancement of Rent and Renewal of Lease Agreement of our Divisional Office premises at 794, Sahidnagar, 1st Floor, Bhubaneswar. With reference to the above, we have the pleasure to inform you that our HO have accorded approval for the enhancement of rent of the premises in question on the following terms and conditions. 1. Rent to be enhanced to Rs.13.50 per Sq.ft. on 3798 Sq.ft. i.e. the rentable area amounting to Rs.51,273/-per month w.e.f. 24.03.2004 for 6(3+3) years with 15% increase in rent after every three years. 2. 1. Rent to be enhanced to Rs.13.50 per Sq.ft. on 3798 Sq.ft. i.e. the rentable area amounting to Rs.51,273/-per month w.e.f. 24.03.2004 for 6(3+3) years with 15% increase in rent after every three years. 2. The payment of rent at the enhanced rate and the arrear due would be released on execution and registration of the Lease Agreement. 3. The cost of Stamp Duty and the Registration expenses are to be shared with us at the ratio of 50:50 basis: We also enclose herewith a copy of the Draft Agreement for your ready reference and look forward for your early response in the matter. Thanking you, Yours faithfully Sr. Divisional Manager Encl.: As above C.C. to Bhubaneswar R.O. for information <rentenhancement>” (17) Under the circumstances the petitioner will be entitled rent upto 23.03.2004 @ 15% over and above the rate prevailing as on 23.03.2001. Further considering the information available from both the above documents it is amply clear that the Insurance Company had agreed to renew rent of the concerned premises w.e.f 24.03.2004 @ Rs.13.50 paisa per Sqft. with further agreement to facilitate increase in the rent @ 15% per month beyond the first three years w.e.f.24.03.2004. Thus I decide the entitlement of the petitioner beyond 24.03.2004 at least @ 13.50 paisa per Sqft. for 3798 Sqft. per month till 23.03.2007. Similarly on and from 23.03.2007 till the date of vacation of the House ultimately on 1.09.2008 the petitioner will be entitled to rent for such period @ 15% over and above the rent as on 23.03.2007. The petitioner will also be entitled to increase in the service charges @ 1.5% of the House rent althrough as agreed. Considering that the opposite parties have not paid a single pie till they vacated the disputed premises on 1.09.2008 I direct the opposite parties to clear the arrear rents and service charge in terms of the direction hereinabove alongwith an interest @ 8% per annum from the date of entitlement till the date of payment. (18) In view of the direction contained hereinabove, this Court further direct that let the amount as directed hereinabove be calculated and released within a period of one month from the date of judgment. (19) The writ petition succeeds to the extent directed hereinabove. However, there shall be no order as to cost.