29. As noted earlier, in terms of clause 6.2(b) of the Agreement, the respondent was required to keep available and valid, the documents relating to the property subject matter of the Agreement and the documents specifically mentioned therein cannot be said to be the only documents required to be kept available and valid by the respondent. The use of the words 'all the documents related to the property such as 'clearly indicates that all the documents which could be genuinely required by the claimant were required to be kept available and valid. Of course, the claimant could not have sought irrelevant documents from the respondent. But, it can be hardly disputed that the documents such as title deed, Sanctioned Building Plans and the Occupancy Certificate would be genuinely required by the person entrusted with the management of the property. This is more so, when the policy of the service provider is to manage only those properties which are legally compliant. The respondent did not offer the copies of even these core property documents to the claimant. The case of the claimant is that the documents were necessary for carrying out an audit of the subject property, which was also envisaged in the Agreement. By failing to provide these core property documents to the claimant committed breach of yet another material term of the Agreement, thereby giving a right to the claimant to terminate the Agreement. 30. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent that the Agreement between the parties was a Lease Agreement and, therefore, the Claimant was bound to pay the share of the Respondent in the net revenue subject to the minimum guarantee agreed between the parties, as the lease money. I however, find myself unable to accept the contention. Though the words "lease" and "lessee" have been occasionally used in the Agreement as well as in the Statement of Claim, in pith and substance the Agreement between the parties is a management Service Agreement. As noted earlier, the Agreement is described as Management Service Agreement, the Claimant is described as Service Provider and the Respondent as Owner, in the preamble to the Agreement. It is also recorded that the Owner was desirous of engaging the Service Provider for providing the services on an exclusive basis. As per Clause 2.1 of the Agreement, the Respondent had appointed the Claimant for providing services in the premises on the terms and conditions contained therein and had undertaken to execute an Irrevocable Power of Attorney in its favour, authorizing it interalia to collect rent / licence fee from the guests. The
