The responsibility of registration of an unregistered lease deed of immovable property for a period of more than one year lies upon the party who does not want to derive the benefit of monthly tenancy.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5. 7. 2003 passed by Sri B. Mondal, the learned Additional District Judge, Alipore, South 24-Parganas in Title Appeal No. 183 of 2002 affirming the judgment and decree dated 7. 5. 2002 passed by Sri S. K. Manna, the learned Civil Judge, Junior division, 1 st Court, Alipore in connection with Title Suit No. 4 of 2002.

( 2 ) THE suit filed by the plaintiff is for eviction of the tenant and for mesne profit. The plaintiff's case in brief is that he is the owner of the suit property. The defendant was inducted as a monthly tenant by virtue of tenancy agreement dated 28. 10. 1985 together with another agreement dated 29. 10. 1986. The said tenancy was in existence from 28. 10. 1985 and had expired on 31. 10. 1997. The tenant did not vacate the suit premises despite the expiry of the term of agreement. Besides the plaintiff has brought the ground of damage of the suit property at the instance of the defendant. And so the suit is for eviction and mesne profit.

( 3 ) THE defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement in which all the material-allegations are denied and it is inter alia stated that the suit shop was constructed at his own cost as the plaintiff did not liquidate a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of the defendant. It is claimed that the plaintiff took the said sum of Rs. 10,000/- as a loan from the defendant.

( 4 ) THE learned Trial Judge passed the order of decree in favour of the plaintiff which was affirmed by the appellate Court.

( 5 ) IN the present appeal the appellant/tenant/defendant has raised a number of substantial questions of law. However, after hearing both the parties and materials on records the following substantial questions of law including the additional one have been formulated :"1. Whether an unregistered lease in respect of immovable property exceeding one year duration can be admitted in evidence as that of a lease of immovable property when the same has not been registered in accordance with law. 2. Whether the purported notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is a valid notice and whether it satisfies the requirement of law and the same can be construed to be valid notice issued to tenant to quit and vacate the suit premises. 3. Whether the burden of presenting a document compulsorily registrable under the Registration Act and the Transfer of Property Act before the registration Authority lies upon the lessor or upon the lessee and whether the finding of the learned Courts below that the responsibility of registration lies upon the appellant/tenant in view of Section I7 (i) (d) of the Indian Registration Act and the executant/landlord had no responsibility for presentation and register the same. 4. Whether the appellate Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the terms of lease was only upto 31. 10. 1997 which had expired by efflux of time and whether the appellant/tenant was not entitled to any statutory notice as provided under Section 106 of the Transfer of property Act. Additional substantial question of Law : 5. Whether the Courts below erred in law in not holding that the agreements (Exts. 1 and 2) are forbidden by law and it would defeat the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. "

( 6 ) MR. Ajoy Krishna Chatterjee, the learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Anil Kumar Rakshit, the learned Counsel for the appellant/tenant/ defendant has drawn my attention to Exhibits 6 and 6 Ka. According to him those are actually the reminders issued by the plaintiff for expiry of the lease, although those were taken by the first appellate Court as notices under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as T. R Act ). It is argued that if any letter is given before the expiry of the period of lease the same cannot be treated as notice in terms of Section 106 of the T. R Act. Mr. Chatterjee has pointed out that in the c