An unregistered lease deed cannot establish tenancy or enforce property rights, as it violates mandatory registration laws.

1. The substantial question of law that arises for determination in this second appeal is:
"Whether a rent deed, compulsorily registerable under the Transfer of Property Act, executed by a tenant in favour of a landlord if not registered can be relied upon to establish the relationship existing between the parties?"

2. The building in this case belonged to a Namboodiri family and is now in possession of the defendant claiming to be a lessee inducted into possession in 1974 on the strength of an unregistered lease deed for a term of five years and on a monthly rent of Rs. 140/-. The rights of the Namboodiri family have been obtained by the plaintiff by assignment. The validity of that assignment is no longer in challenge. In the court, a counter part of the unregistered lease deed accepted by the Karanavan of the Namboodiri family was produced (Ext. B 3). If the defendant is in fact a lessee as contended by him, the suit is not maintainable for, the remedy has to be found under the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act. On the other hand, if the lease is void, the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of possession on the strength of title.

3. The Trial Court found that there was no valid lease; that the deed not having been registered offended S.107 of the Transfer of Property Act and S.17 of the Registration Act; that the defendant cannot rely on the equitable doctrine of part performance under S.53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act and he did not obtain any valid right to remain in possession. The suit was therefore, decreed.

4. In appeal to the District Court, it was found that the deed was void, but relying on a decision of this Court reported in Neelakantan Sreedharan v. Subba Bhakthan Narayana Bhakthan (1975 KLT 128) held that the counter part (Ext.B3) was admissible in evidence, it could be relied on for a collateral purpose and can be looked into to decide the rights under which the defendant was holding possession. It thus found that the defendant was in possession as a tenant and therefore, held that the suit for eviction did not lie in the Civil Court. The appeal was thus allowed and the suit was dismissed.

5. It is against this Judgment and decree that the plaintiff has filed this appeal.

6. In deciding the questions raised in the second appeal, the interpretation and impact of S.107 of the Transfer of Property Act and S.17(1)(d) and S.49 of the Registration arise for consideration.

7. S.107 of the Transfer of Property Act insists that 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. Other leases can be made either by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession or by a registered instrument. In those cases, if the lease is created by a registered instrument, that instrument has to be executed by both the lessor and the lessee. The terms of the yearly lease have thus to be reduced in writing and the writing required registration. The lease is, therefore, void for want of registration and no operative lease came into existence.

8. The next question is whether the unregistered lease deed can be relied on to establish the jural relationship between the parties. The lower court relied on a ruling of this Court in Sreedharan's case (1975 KLT 128) where it was held thus:
"The rent deed is executed by the lessee alone. It is also not registered and therefore it is inadmissible to prove the creation of a lease by an instrument. But, it is admissible to prove the creation of a lease by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession a