JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal by the defendant. Plaintiff filed the suit for the ejectment of the defendant, for recovery of Rs. 2765 as arrears of rent and for future and pendente lite mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 75 per month. The suit was decreed by the trial court holding that the defendant had committed a default in the payment of rent and the notice of ejectment was valid. The lower appellate court in appeal decided the only question that was raised before it, namely, that the notice dated the 30th May, 1963 was a valid notice. The appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved the defendant appellant has come up in appeal in this Court.

2. The only point urged in this case was that the notice dated the 30th May, 1963 did not validly terminate the tenancy and it subsisted. There is no dispute now that the lease was for a manufacturing purpose. Normally a notice for a period of six months is necessary to terminate the tenancy. But if there is a contract to the contrary it will be for the period stated in the contract. The case of the plaintiff is that there is a contract to the contrary for there is a lease in writing. Ext. 12 is the lease executed between the Secretary of the plaintiff Trust and the defendant, Ram Swarup Jain. It shows that the premises in suit was let out to the defendant for a period of twelve months on a rent of Rs. 75 per month. It was also stipulated that the tenancy was to begin on the first day of every month according to English calendar and was to end with the last day of that month. It was further stipulated in paragraph 5 that the tenancy was to terminate by 15 days' notice on either side.

3. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is this that under S. 107 of the Transfer of Property Act a lease of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent can be made only by a registered instrument and all other leases of immovable property may be made either by a registered instrument or by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession. He contended that in the present case it was not a lease from year to year nor a lease in which there was a reservation of yearly rent but according, to the tenor of the lease deed. Ex. 12, it was a lease for a term exceeding one year and it, therefore, required registration. His further contention was that since in any event the lease deed in the present case was not a registered document it was inadmissible in evidence and further that it did not validly terminate the lease (notice ?) and, therefore, the suit could not be decreed.

4. Paragraph 5 of the lease deed. Ex. 12, reads as follows :

"5. Yeh ki bad guzarne meyad kiraya-nama haza jis waqat bhi makan farik awwal khali kare ga ya farik doyam khali karaya ga to har do janib se 15 din ka notice tehrir men dena lazami hoga."

Learned counsel argued that if the suit premises was not vacated within the period of one year and if the appellant remained in possession of the suit premises for a day more than the originally stipulated period of twelve months the provision of Clause 5 would come into play. It would then require a notice of fifteen days. He, therefore, contended that this lease deed was for a period exceeding twelve months, i.e. exceeding the year and was necessarily to be registered. A perusal of paragraph 5 above makes it clear, that a notice of 15 days will be necessary if the suit premises were sought to be vacated any time after the period of the lease viz. twelve months. It nowhere stipulated that the lease was for a period exceeding twelve months. I am, therefore, not impressed by this argument and I hold that the lease deed was for a period of twelve months only and as such was not compulsorilv registerable.

5. Learned counsel then urged that in view of the second part of Section 107 it is clear that the leases which do not come within the first part of Section 107 have either to be made by registered instrument or oral agreement accompanied