Unregistered lease expiry and tenant at sufferance mean no Section 106 notice was needed before possession suit.

An unregistered lease deed for a term exceeding one year could not be used to prove the contractual terms, though it could be considered to identify the character of possession. On the admitted facts, the lease had been fixed for fifteen years and expired by efflux of time under Section 111(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The lessee's continued occupation thereafter was only as a tenant at sufferance, so no notice terminating the tenancy under Section 106 was required before filing the suit for possession. The absence of such notice therefore did not affect maintainability.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on expiry of an unregistered lease deed for a fixed term, the lessee became a tenant at sufferance so that no notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was necessary before filing the suit for possession.

Analysis: A lease of immovable property for a term exceeding one year must be by a registered instrument. An unregistered lease deed cannot be relied upon to prove the contractual terms, though it may be looked at for the limited purpose of ascertaining the nature and character of possession. The record contained a clear admission that the lease was for fifteen years and had expired on 24 May 1996. On expiry, the lease determined by efflux of time under Section 111(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the respondent's continued occupation was only as a tenant at sufferance. In such a situation, the requirement of a notice terminating the tenancy under Section 106 did not arise.

Conclusion: The absence of a notice under Section 106 did not make the suit non-maintainable. The respondent was not entitled to succeed on the plea of want of notice.

---