The central legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of the tenancy and the validity of the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act are determined by the agreement between the parties.

N. K. Mehrotra, J.—This is second appeal against the judgment dated 19.4.1979 passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Lucknow in Regular Civil Appeal No. 130 of 1979, Ram Avtar v. Ram Kishore Seth and others, allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 5.4.1977 passed by Munsif South, Lucknow in Regular Suit No. 784/68, Ram Kishore Seth v. Smt. Godawari Devi.

2. In this appeal, I heard Shri S. K. Mehrotra, advocate for the defendant-appellant. In spite of the best efforts, the learned counsel for

the respondents did not appear to argue the appeal. Firstly, the matter was adjourned on the request of Shri B. K. Saxena, advocate counsel for the respondents and then a notice was also sent to Shri B. K. Saxena, advocate by the registry for 15.9.2004 when this appeal was listed for hearing. On 15.9.2004, also Shri B. K. Saxena did not appear. Therefore, the appeal was heard finally.

3. The case of the plaintiff-appellant is that Plot No. 120 measuring 2480 sq. ft. situated at Paliganj Ward, Hussainganj, Lucknow was let out to late Shri Ramakant husband of the respondent No. 2 Godawari Devi and father of the other respondents, on a monthly rent of Rs. 35 for a period of four years in the year 1958 and this period of four years expired on 17.6.1962 and thereafter the defendants were tenant by holding over. The plaintiff-appellant determined the tenancy of the respondents on 29.2.1968 by serving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. In spite of the service of notice, the defendants failed to vacate the land in suit. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 40.83 as rent and mesne profits for the period from 1.3.1968 to 5.4.1968 and Rs. 2 per day from 6.4.1968 to 14.10.1968 amounting to Rs. 384. In all, the plaintiff claimed the amount of Rs. 424.83 alongwith the relief of ejectment.

4. The case of the defendants-respondents was that the plot in question was given to them on licence on a premium of Rs. 35 per month for manufacturing purpose. It is alleged by the respondents that the father of the plaintiff-appellant took a registered agreement from the defendants in the name of the plaintiff by way of a licence allowing the defendants to make construction of a temporary nature for manufacturing purpose of breaking pulses for a period of four years on 19.6.1954. After the expiry of the period of four years on 19.6.1958, a fresh agreement was got executed. After the expiry of this period of four years, again in the year 1962, a fresh agreement came into existence and therefore the defendants cannot be considered to be the tenant by holding over and since there is no breach of the conditions of the agreement, the defendants are not liable to be evicted.

5. The trial court decreed the suit by holding that the defendants were lessee of plots in question and not the licensee ; that the defendants were tenants by holding over and were liable to ejectment ; that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was valid and there was no need of sending six months’ notice ; that the principles of estoppel do not apply ; that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount of rent and mesne profits ; that the agreement in question was not the outcome of any misrepresentation or fraud ; that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the plaintiff was entitled to the reliefs claimed.

6. The defendants preferred an appeal and appellate court held that lease in question was for manufacturing purpose of breaking pulses and it will be deemed to be a lease from year to year as provided under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. A six months’ notice for the determination of the tenancy of the defendants was necessary. It was also held that since six months’ notice was not given, the notice was invalid. It was also held that the document which was required to be registered and which has not been registered, cannot be received in evidence as provided under Secti