JUDGMENT :- This is a defendant's second civil appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Meerut.

2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for possession of an enclosure specified in the plaint claiming arrears of rent and mesne profits for use and occupation till the date of delivery of possession.

3. According to the plaintiff the defendant-appellant under a deed of agreement which is Ext.3 on record, was occupying the premises in suit on monthly rent of Rs.100/-. The lease according to him was for a period of one year only and on expiry of one year's period on 11-4-1965, his status became that of a tenant from month to month and he was liable to ejectment after his tenancy was determined by notice dated 20th April, 1966. The eviction was also claimed on the ground of forfeiture for breach of a term of the agreement. The claim of the ejectment on the ground of forfeiture, however, was subsequently abandoned.

4. The appellant pleaded that on a correct interpretation of the document Ext.3, he acquired rights of permanent licensee over the land in dispute and even if his status was that of a lessee, then also under the terms of the aforesaid agreement he was entitled to retain the possession of the premises so long as he continued to pay the rent.

5. The trial court held that under the terms of the lease the appellant was entitled to remain in possession so long as he continued to pay the rent and the lease being only for one year, it was not registrable. In appeal, the lower appellate court reversed the decree of the trial court holding that the lease was compulsorily registrable and as it was for a term exceeding one year and the lease not having been registered, the status of the appellant was that of a tenant from month to month; hence this second civil appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant, in the second civil appeal has contended that the lease was a lease for one year with an option to renew as long as the tenant desired on the terms and conditions of the agreement Ext.3. His contention is that the lease was liable to be renewed year after year at the option of the tenant on the terms of the original lease i.e. Ext.3 whereas the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the lease did not give any right of renewal but in effect authorised the tenant to enjoy the property as long as the tenant chooses. It was, therefore, in the nature of a transfer of an interest for more than a year and compulsorily registrable. He has also contended that the agreement was also compulsorily registrable because it was a lease of two years in any event and lastly he has contended that even if the right of renewal is found to flow from the terms of the agreement, then also the renewal cannot be for an indefinite period and the right of renewal would exhaust after one renewal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed his reliance on A.C. Boyd v. A. Kreigh, (1890) ILR 17 Cal 548; Khayali v. Husain Bakhsh, (1886) ILR 8 All 198; Ram Kempraj v. Burton Son and Co. Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1970 SC 1872. In case of (1890) ILR 17 Cal 548 (supra) it is laid down that "a lease for one year containing an option of renewal for a further period of one year, is not a lease for a term exceeding one year within the meaning of clause (d), Section 17 of the Registration Act, so as to render registration thereof compulsory." It was also held by his Lordship of the Calcutta High Court that the tenant was entitled to claim the option or renewal. The option of renewal was given in the following terms:

"Also with option to renew for another twelve months certain."

In (1886) ILR 8 All 198 (supra), the lease was for one year, but it contained a provision that it shall remain in force so long as the lessee or tenant continued to pay the stipulated rent. The suit of the plaintiff for possession and ejectment was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the lease was inadmissible in evidence. In appeal the subord

Click Here to Read the rest of this document