AFR Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:10881 Court No. - 4 Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 524 of 2011 Revisionist :- Pawan Kumar Kothiwal And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Archit Mehrotra Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

1. Heard Shri Archit Mehrotra, learned Advocate appearing for revision-applicants and Shri O.P. Singh Sikarwar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for State of U.P. and Regional Food Controller, Civil Lines, Moradabad, the tenant respondents.

2. The sole issue that arises for consideration before the Court is as to whether an unregistered document presented by the respondent can be read into to draw an inference that there was a tenancy in perpetuity and therefore, could not have been determined by issuance of a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

3. In the instant case revision-applicant/ plaintiff has been non- suited in the eviction suit only for the reason that respondent presented an unregistered agreement before the court to demonstrate that there was not fixed term tenancy contrary to the stand taken by plaintiff that there was a fixed term tenancy to expire on 30.06.2009 and, therefore, the respondents were liable to be evicted upon expiry of the term of tenancy and in the event of their failure to vacate the premises, the tenancy was liable to be determined by issuance of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The trial court while dislodging the stand of the plaintiff to determine the tenancy by issuing notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act held that in view of agreement relied upon by the respondents there appear to be no fixed term tenancy and, hence, it amounted to tenancy in perpetuity and plaintiff/ revision-applicant having continued, the respondents in tenancy by their act and conduct, the benefit under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act of holding over was liable to be extended to the tenant respondent.

4. The submission advanced by learned counsel appearing for revision-applicant for assailing the judgment is that no unregistered agreement in respect of immovable property can create lease rights beyond prescribed period of 12 months as per Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 17 of the Registration Act in such circumstances, therefore, an unregistered agreement would only mean to create tenancy right on month to month basis determinable with 30 days notice in advance as it then stood on the statute vide provision 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Thus, it is submitted that the court below was not justified in holding the lease to be a valid agreement creating tenancy rights in perpetuity and then conferring benefit of Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act in favour of the tenant respondents for the act and conduct of plaintiff in continuing them in tenancy beyond the period prescribed as per their own document of five years of tenancy which was not acted upon. According to learned counsel appearing for revision applicant, revision applicant would be tenant in sufferance upon issuance of notice under Section 106 and therefore, would not be entitled to benefit under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act.

5. Learned counsel appearing for revision-applicant has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sevoke Properties Limited v. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (2020) 11 Supreme Court Cases 782 and placed before the Court paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment that run as under:

"12. The essence of the dispute in the present case is as to whether a notice of termination under Section 106 was necessary. In the judgment of this Court in Satish Chand Makhan, the father of the plaintiff had leased open land to the defendant for a period of five years under a registered deed of lease. After the expiry of the initial term, there was a draft agreement for renewal for a further period of