A lease for a fixed term cannot be varied or altered by an unregistered instrument or even by oral agreement.

( 1 ) THIS is an application from a judgment and decree allowing the refief of eviction to the plaintiff/respoadent as against the appellant/defendant.

( 2 ) THE premises in question was occupied under a lease dated January 12. 1963. The farther case of the plaintiff is that the lease was far a period of 21 years, which expired in the month of January. 1964. Thereafter the defendant bad no right to occupy: the kaae period being of not less than 20 years, the West Bengal Premise Tenancy Act. i. e. the Rent Control Law of our State, had no application; the suit was. therefore, properly decreed.

( 3 ) THE appellant, on the other hand, submitted that as early as In 1971 the ground floor of the premises in question, which was part of the property demised. under the written agreement, was surrendered. The original lessee was a partnership concern of the same name. T. C. I. . as the appellant, and it continued to occupy the first floor of the premises thereafter, being the balance of the demised property

( 4 ) IN 1976. the Firm T. C. I, ceased to exist and the appellant company t. C. I. Ltd. came into existence.

( 5 ) ONE of the main planks of the argument of the appellant was. that in 1976 the company became a tenant under the landlord afresh; that a monthly tenancy arose with increased rent; that earlier Rs. 500/- was paid and in 1976 the rent was increased by Rs. 100/- and service charges were also added: that the landlord had given no consent in writing for assignment, as required under the lease, for assignment by the partnership to the company; that the original lease being a registered instrument, a substitution of the lessee or a substitution of the rent fixed could be effected, if at aft. . only by another registered instrument and in no other manner.

( 6 ) THE second defence of the appellant was the written leas mentions that it is a term of 21 years, yet. in mentioning the exact dates it describes the term as running from 12. 1. 1968 to 19. 1. 1963 and thus, the lease was in effect for 20 years only. A notice of 1982 was served by me respondent making the apelant to vacate in january 1983 in accordance with the whether dwsconded turm. As. such the appellent being nonetheless allowed to stay in the promises up to January. 1984. accompanied by acceptance of monthly rent by the landlord. there arose a fresh monthly the appellant, the second should succeed even if the first argument of fresh tenancy should fall

( 7 ) ON behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that by means of a registered letter written immediately after the expiry of Januaiy 1983, the earlier mistaken noitice of 1982 was retracted. Although the defendant dented the receipt of this notice, such denial should not be placed any reilauce upon, because the notice was sent under registered post and not under a mere certificate of posting; due service should be presumed unless the contrary can be sufficiently established by the defendant

( 8 ) IT was also submitted very emphatically by the respondent thai by a contemporaneous letter, written in 1976. which was duly exhibited, the existence of the lease dated 12. 1. 1963 was affirmed on the part of die T. C. I. Ltd. i. e. the appellant and the rate of rent was increased with reference to the said lease and not as a result of a completely separatenegotiation, for creation of a fresh monthly tenancy.

( 9 ) SEVERAL cases were cited by Mr. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and also by Mr. Dasgupta. learned counsel appearing for the' respondent.

( 10 ) SOME of those we shall deal with hereafter, but not all

( 11 ) IN disposing of this case, it should be home in mind, that landlords and tenants in this State are generally aware that creation of a monthly tenancy brings the tenant under the protection of the Rent Control Laws: when such protection is obtained by the tenant eviction is not possible excepting upon certain specified grounds. The other grounds permitted by th