An unregistered lease agreement is void and does not create a tenancy.

SINHA, J. :- This is an appeal against a judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Howrah, dated 30th March, 1963 by which he allowed an appeal from the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, First Court, Howrah, dated 30th September, 1961 and dismissed the original suit against the contesting defendant Nos. 1 and 2 with costs. The facts in this case are briefly as follows : There is a Cinema House situated at 61 Chintamoni Dey Lane, Howrah, belonging to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, Sri Santosh Kumar Dutta and Sri Nandalal Dutta. By a registered lease dated 11th September, 1948, the said respondents leased out, the said premises to the third respondent, Kanti Bhusan Bose, for a period of five years with effect from the 1st September, 1948. This Kanti Bhusan Bose is the Managing Director of the Appellant Company, the Biswabani Private Ltd. By mutual consent the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 accepted the appellant company as their tenant and the said company was paying a rent of Rs. 2,000/- per month. In 1953, disputes and differences arose between the parties. On or about the 5th October, 1963, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed a suit for ejectment against the appellant company and the respondent No.3 in the Court of the first subordinate Judge, Howrah being T. S. No. 68 of 1953. The appellant company filed a case before the Rent Controller, Howrah, against the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, being Rent Control Case No. 114 of 1953. After a protracted litigation, the parties settled their disputes and a compromise petition was filed in the said T. S. No. 68 of 1953 on the 26th February, 1955. By the compromise petition the parties agreed that the appellant company was to remain in possession of the said cinema house for five years, beginning from the 1st day of March, 1955 at a rental of Rs. 1,000/- per month, Rs. 500/- being the rent for the cinema house and Rs. 500/- being the rent for the machinery, furniture and fixtures. Over and above the said payment, the appellant was to pay the occupiers shares of municipal taxes for the entire premises. The respondent No. 3 agreed to stand as surety and kept a deposit of Rs. 20,000/- with the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The licence standing in the name of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for running the above cinema was to continue in their names, but they agreed not to surrender the same, except for default in payment of rent for six consecutive months. It was agreed between the parties that a written lease was to be executed and registered, containing all the terms embodied in the solenama. Finally, it was one of the terms of the said compromise decree that there would be no further extension of the lease after expiry of the stipulated period, that is to say, after the expiry of the month of February, 1960; and after that date, the appellant, if it continued possession, was to be treated as a trespasser.

2. The appellant company continued in possession but it so happened that no lease was executed nor registered by the parties as contemplated by the compromise decree. Even after the expiry of the said term, the appellant company refused to vacate the premises. On the 14th March, 1960 the appellant company filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Court at Howrah, against the respondents, being title suit No. 10 of 1960, for a declaration of its tenancy right in the said premises, for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from interfering with its tenancy right; and a mandatory injunction directing the said defendants to remove the locks which the said defendants had put at different parts of the disputed property, and for other reliefs. It was stated in the plaint that inasmuch as no written lease was executed and registered in accordance with the terms of the solenama, the plaintiff had become a tenant from month to month and as this monthly tenancy had not been determined by a proper notice to quit t