31.1.2002. In the case M/s. Uptron Powertronics Ltd (5 supra) the Delhi High Court was dealing with a similar case. The appellant in that case came into possession of the suit premises by virtue of a lease deed dated: 31.5.1981,which expired by 1984. Thereafter, the parties entered into a registered lease deed on 17.7.1984 said to be from 1.5.1984. The lease was continued beyond the initial period of three years and the rent was enhanced as agreed. It was argued in that case that lease was continuous and perpetual in nature and can only be determined by mutual consent of the parties. The Delhi High Court after referring to the decision of the Apex Court in BPCL Vs. Khaja Midhat Noo r[6] held that the lease of a immovable property exceeding one year can only be made by a registered instrument. Admittedly, in the present case, the lease between the parties is an unregistered one and it is therefore clear that in the absence of a registered lease, necessary consequences will follow. This means the tenancy would only be on month-tomonth basis and the lease can be terminable by issuing a notice under section 106 of the Act, which, in fact, was done by issuing notice on 2.4.1997. Thus, finally it was held that since the lease was not extended by a registered instrument for the subsequent block of three years, it was only a month-to-month tenancy which can be terminated in accordance with the provisions of S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Madras High Court also taken a similar view in Rasiklal M. Mehta’s case (4 supta), wherein it was held that once the renewal of lease comes within the scope of S. 107, such lease can only be made by a registered instrument. Therefore, even if there is a clause or even there is an option for renewal of the lease in the original lease deed and when such a lease is renewed, the same amounts to entering into a fresh lease, which requires compliance of S. 107 of the
