( 1. ) THE respondent Hologram instituted a suit against the appellants claiming, inter alia, a decree against them for eviction from the suit land, more particularly mentioned in paragraph 1 of the plaint. The second appellant was joined in the suit on (he allegation that the first defendant who was the tenant of the plaintiff had sublet the suit land to him.

( 2. ) THE material facts are these The suit land and some other land adjoining it originally belonged to two brothers Moula Bux and Rahim Bux. They inducted the first defendant as their tenant on the suit land under an unregistered lease deed Ex. D-3, dated 29-3-1952. The tenancy of the first defendant commenced from 1-4-1952. Ex. D-3 contains a stipulation that the tenancy shall be for a fixed term of twenty years and that the tenant at his option shall be able to renew it for a further term of ten years. The stipulated rent was Rs. 50 per month. Moula Bux and Rahim Bux sold the suit land as also the other land adjoining it under the sale deed dated 26-10-1956 to the plaintiff Holaram and khemchand. Subsequently on 31-12-1961 a partition took place between the two purchasers and the suit land which admeasures 100 x 110 fell to the share of the plaintiff and thus the first appellant became a tenant of the plaintiff. It is not in dispute that the payment of rent at the stipulated rate of Rs. 50 per month was made to the plaintiff-respondent from 1-1-1962 Upton the month of october 1963 by the first defendant through the second defendant. On 18-11-1963 the plaintiff sent a notice by registered post determining the tenancy of the first defendant as from 31-1-1964. On failure of the defendants to vacate the land, the plaintiff instituted the suit.

( 3. ) THE trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff was debarred from enforcing any right in respect of the property on the basis of the provisions contained in section 53a of the Transfer of Property Act though the trial Court had held that the plaintiff had succeeded in establishing that he required the suit land bona fide for the purposes of his residence and starting business.

( 4. ) THE lower appellate Court, however, decreed the claim holding that the tenancy of the first defendant was from month to month ; that the said tenancy was validly determined by plaintiffs notice dated 18-11-1963 ; that the defendant was not entitled to prove the terms of lease as incorporated in document Ex. D-3 as the lease contemplated under the said document was for a term of twenty years with a clause for renewal for a further term of ten years at the option of the lessee and under section 107 of the Transfer of Property act such lease could only be made by a registered document. On this reasoning, the lower appellate Court decreed the plaintiffs claim for eviction and other reliefs which were sought by him. Feeing aggrieved, the defendants have filed this appeal.

( 5. ) HAVING heard the learned counsel on both sides, I am of the view that this appeal must be allowed. In my opinion, the lower appellate Court has erred in holding that the tenant-appellant was not entitled to rely on and prove the contract incorporated in the lease-deed Ex. D-3 which fulfils all the conditions laid down in section 53a of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 53-A reads thus :

"where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immovable property by writing sinned by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty, and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract,akon possession of the property or any part thereof, or the transferee, being already in possession, continued in possession in part performance of the contract and has done some act in furtherance of the contract, and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract, then, notwithstanding that the contract, though required to be registered, has not been regi