Ramachandran Nair, J.

1) The important question that is raised in these revision petitions is, whether in the absence of production of the alleged lease deed executed between the parties, which is an unregistered one, in evidence, the reliance placed on certain alleged admissions made by the respondent-landlady, is sufficient to presume a transaction of valid lease for a term exceeding one year so as to attract Section 11(9) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short, the 'Act').

2) The respective petitioners are partners, doing business in the name and style of 'Hotel Paragon' in a building of which the respondent is the landlady. Eviction is sought under Section 11(3) of the Act, namely, for the bona fide need of the landlady for residential purposes as well as to start a garment making unit in the petition schedule building. The Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority ordered eviction in favour of the landlady and hence the revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners-tenants, assailing the orders passed by the authorities below.

3) We heard the learned Senior Counsel Shri R.D.Shenoi, learned counsel Shri Vinod Bhat, Shri Basil Mathew, Shri N.M.Mohamed Ayub for the petitioners-tenants and learned counsel Shri C.Varghese Kuriakose appearing for the first respondent-landlady. The parties are referred to as arrayed in these revision petitions.

4) The learned Senior Counsel Shri R.D.Shenoi raised the following contentions:- The Act, is a complete code in itself. It is submitted that the definitions of “building”, “landlord” and “tenant” in the Act are important and the learned Senior Counsel specifically referred to the word “let” provided in the definition under Section 2 (1) of the Act, concerning “building”. It is submitted that there can be a transaction for the purpose of the Act to bring out a relationship between the landlord and tenant and therefore, the admissions made by the landlady in the evidence of the terms of the lease can be relied upon by the court to examine and find in favour of the tenants on the plea under Section 11(9) of the Act. This is so, particularly, in the light of the provision under Section 11(9) of the Act which only indicates that the tenant will be entitled for the benefit of the provision where “the tenancy is for a specified period agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant”. The learned Senior Counsel further elaborated the argument by submitting that an unregistered lease deed cannot be received as evidence of any transaction affecting the property going by the decisions of the Apex Court and this Court. In the case in hand, the document is not relied upon by the landlady and the same has not been produced. In such a case, the true nature of the transaction can be found by examining the other evidence in detail. It is submitted that the non registration of the document will not affect the transaction and, therefore, in a case like this, provisions of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Section 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 need not be gone into. The principle of estoppel by conduct is attracted as the transaction has been proved independent of the lease deed. It is submitted that in the decisions relied upon by the Rent Control court, namely, Anthony vs. K.C.Ittoop and sons and others [(2000) 6 SCC 394], Samir Mukherjee vs. Davinder K.Bajaj and others [(2001) 5 SCC 259] and Paul vs. Saleena [2004 (1) KLT 924], the narration of the facts will show that in all those cases, the unregistered lease deeds were produced in evidence and, therefore, the conclusions and findings on the legal and factual aspects in those cases cannot have any application in these cases. It is submitted that admission by the party is substantive evidence and, in these cases, the admission by PW1 about the transaction is there. As far as those aspects are concerned, it cannot be said that the principles under the Registration Act which r