Unregistered lease cannot extinguish tenancy; tenant retains statutory protection and may be evicted only by due process.

An unregistered consent decree purporting to create a fresh lease for more than one year could not validly substitute the existing tenancy, because registration was mandatory for such a lease. The void instrument did not extinguish the tenant's prior status or convert the occupant into a trespasser, and rent control protection continued until lawful surrender or eviction. A landlord could not use self-help, including forcible entry or locking the premises, to dispossess such a tenant; eviction had to proceed in accordance with law. An imprecise High Court certificate did not defeat the appeal where the case raised a substantial question of law of general public importance.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an unregistered consent decree embodying the terms of a fresh lease for a period exceeding one year could extinguish the existing tenancy and convert the occupant into a trespasser on expiry of the stipulated period; (ii) whether a tenant already in possession, whose attempted fresh lease is void for want of registration, can be forcibly evicted by the landlord or must be evicted only in accordance with law; (iii) whether the appeal was liable to fail because of the alleged defect in the certificate granted by the High Court.

Issue (i): Whether an unregistered consent decree embodying the terms of a fresh lease for a period exceeding one year could extinguish the existing tenancy and convert the occupant into a trespasser on expiry of the stipulated period.

Analysis: A lease for a term exceeding one year required registration under section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, read with section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908. The consent decree, being unregistered, could not operate as a valid fresh lease. The Court held that an ineffective or void attempt to create a new lease did not destroy the pre-existing tenancy where the occupant was already in possession as tenant and rent continued to be accepted. The doctrines of part performance under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the terms of the void instrument could not be used to treat the tenant as a trespasser or to defeat the protection of the rent control law. The tenant's status therefore continued notwithstanding the void lease.

Conclusion: The attempted fresh lease was void and did not terminate the existing tenancy or convert the appellant into a trespasser.

Issue (ii): Whether a tenant already in possession, whose attempted fresh lease is void for want of registration, can be forcibly evicted by the landlord or must be evicted only in accordance with law.

Analysis: The Court treated the appellant as a statutory tenant after expiry of the original lease and held that such a tenant enjoys the statutory status of irremovability until surrender or eviction under the enabling provisions of the rent control law. A tenant in that position cannot be dispossessed by the landlord by self-help, entry into the premises, or locking the premises. The Court further held that section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, was not the foundation of the appellant's case, because the suit was for declaration of tenancy rights and injunction, not an attempt to use part performance as a sword. Accordingly, the tenant could sue to protect possession and seek appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief.

Conclusion: The appellant could not be forcibly evicted and was entitled to protect possession until eviction in due course of law.

Issue (iii): Whether the appeal was liable to fail because of the alleged defect in the certificate granted by the High Court.

Analysis: Although the certificate granted by the High Court was imprecise and did not specify the precise clause under Article 133(1) of the Constitution of India, the Court held that the appeal raised a substantial question of law of general public importance. In those circumstances, dismissal merely on the ground of the defective certificate would have been unjust, and the preliminary objection was rejected.

Conclusion: The defective certificate did not bar the appeal.

Final Conclusion: The appellant retained its tenancy status and statutory protection, was entitled to judicial protection of possession, and the preliminary objection to maintainability failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A tenant already in possession does not lose tenancy protection merely because a subsequent unregistered lease for a longer term is void; such an ineffective transaction cannot override the existing tenancy or the statutory protection against eviction except by due process of law.

---