IMPORTANT POINTS
Contents of an unregistered lease document are inadmissible in evidence.
In case of non-renewal lease, it is determined by afflux of time and the tenant becomes a tenant at sufferance. Notice for termination of the lease u/s 106 is not required.

JUDGMENT :

DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises from a judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta dated 14 November 2018. Allowing the first appeal filed by the respondent against a decree for possession, the Division Bench directed, in consequence, that the suit filed by the appellant shall stand dismissed.

3. The subject matter of the dispute is a plot of land situated at Second Mile, Sevoke Road, Siliguri, West Bengal admeasuring 4 bighas, 18 Cottahs, 9 Chittacks and 18 sq.ft.

4. On 22 March 1975, a deed of settlement was executed by Mohan Lal Khemka, by which a private trust was created for the benefit of his grandson. By the said deed, Mahabir Prasad Bhartia and Sunita Bhartia were appointed as trustees. On 5 November 1979, a deed of settlement resulted in the creation of a private trust. At this stage, it would be material to note that the property in dispute has by subsequent devolutions vested in the appellant.

5. On 25 May 1981, an indenture of lease was entered into between the appellant and the respondent. The term of the lease was fifteen years. Under the terms of the lease, the respondent took possession of the land. The rent was paid until 19 April 1984.

6. The State of West Bengal initiated proceedings for requisitioning of the land under the West Bengal Lands (Requisition and Acquisition) Act 1948. The appellant challenged the validity of the requisitioning in a Writ Petition before the High Court. The petition was allowed by a judgment dated 25 September 1998 and the order of requisitioning was set aside. The judgment of the Single Judge was questioned in appeal by the respondent. The appeal was dismissed on 16 November 2000.

7. Eventually, a suit for eviction was instituted before the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalpaiguri [Title Suit 63 of 2001]. The respondent filed its written statement. The learned trial judge decreed the suit by a judgment and order dated 30 November 2005. The trial court passed a decree for vacant and peaceful possession. A preliminary decree for mesne profits was passed. The respondent filed an appeal before the High Court. By an interim order dated 18 May 2006, the Division Bench of the High Court directed that proceedings before the trial Court for ascertainment of mesne profits in terms of Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 [“CPC”] shall continue, but no final decree shall be drawn up without the leave of the Court. The execution proceedings were stayed, subject to deposit of the arrears of rent.

8. Following the order of the High Court, the valuer submitted a report in regard to the valuation of the property. The trial Court accepted the valuation on 7 September 2016. The order of the trial court was challenged by the respondent before the High Court [CO 456 of 2017]. The petition was dismissed on 1 May 2018 by a learned Single Judge.

9. By a judgment and order dated 14 November 2018, the High Court has set aside the decree for possession and, in consequence, directed that the suit instituted by the respondent shall stand dismissed. The High Court has held that:

(i) A lease of immovable property for a term exceeding one year can only be made by a registered instrument;

(ii) Since the indenture of lease was unregistered, it was governed by the first paragraph of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 [“TP Act”];

(iii) The relationship between the parties would, in consequence, be governed by the second paragraph of Section 107;

(iv) The tenancy shall, therefore, be deemed to be from month to month terminable by fifteen days’ notice under Section 106; and

(v) In the absence of a notice under Section 106 determining the relationship of lessor and lessee between the parties, the suit was not maintainable.

10. Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant urged three submissions:

(i) The purpose of a notice under Section 106 is relatable to the necessity of effecting te