Soumen Sen, J.

The plaintiff has filed this application under Chapter XIIIA of the Rules on the Original Side praying, inter alia, for a decree for eviction.

The plaintiff is a lessee for a term of 99 years commencing from January 1, 1962 in respect of Premises Nos.14 and 15, Old Court House Street, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the “suit premises”).

Under the lease, the plaintiff was entitled to construct a three several buildings on the leasehold property. The building constructed on the middle portion of the said property was subsequently known and numbered as 15C, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata-700 001 (hereafter referred to as ‘the said premises’).

Pursuant to an agreement dated 2nd June, 1986 entered into by and between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff leased out the entirety of the 5th floor to the said premises to the defendant measuring about 6933.46 sq.ft. of super built up area (hereinafter referred to as ‘the demised premises’) on the terms and conditions and at the rents mentioned in the said agreement as also in the draft Deed of Lease annexed to the said agreement for a term of 21 years commencing from April 1, 1986. The agreement records that a Lease Deed would be executed in terms of the said agreement for a period of 21 years with an option for renewal and such lease would commence on and with effect from 1st April, 1986. The renewal clause in the draft lease agreement stipulates that if the defendant is willing to renew the lease then in that event, the defendant would be required to give to the plaintiff at least three months’ notice in writing in that behalf by registered post with acknowledgement due before the expiration of the term. In that event, the sub-lessor shall at the cost of the sub-lessee grant to the sub-lessor the lease of the demised premises for a further term at such a rent and on such terms and conditions as shall be mutually agreed upon in writing.

It is an admitted position that no formal deed of lease was executed by and between the parties. The defendant, however, has complied with the terms of the unregistered and unexecuted deed of lease and discharged their obligations.

In view of the quantum of rent payable by the defendant to the plaintiff, the defendant is not a tenant under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and, accordingly, the provision of the said Act does not apply.

Since the lease agreement was not registered the status of the defendant becomes that of a monthly tenant and such tenancy is determinable by serving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff treating the defendant as a monthly tenant served a notice to quit dated 11th April, 2007 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The defendant in spite of service of notice has failed to deliver possession of the property in question. Under such facts and circumstances, the plaintiff has filed a suit for eviction and mesne profits. In the said suit, the plaintiff has filed this application for eviction.

Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that in view of the fact that it is unregistered lease, the defendant cannot rely on the renewal clause to defeat the claim of the plaintiff. The deed purportedly creating lease is inadmissible in evidence and, accordingly, all its terms are inadmissible including the one which gives a right to the lessee to exercise its option for renewal. The right to exercise of option for renewal is an essential term of the lease deed and in absence of the document being registered, no evidence could be laid on unregistered document. Even if it is assumed that the defendant has a right to exercise its option for renewal in terms of clause (e) of the draft lease agreement, the option having not been exercised within the stipulated period of three months’ prior to the expiry of the original lease period, any exercise of option beyond the time period stipulated in the said clause