JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J.
1. This application raises a short but an important question of law.
2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. The opposite parties inducted the petitioner as a tenant by virtue of a registered indenture of lease dated 11th October, 1982. The said registered deed of lease was valid for a period of 7 years. However, the said instrument contained a renewal clause to the effect that after expiry of the fixed period of 7 years i.e. 30th June, 1984 the lease may be renewed for a further period of two years only on the ha me terms and conditions provided the lessee exercises this option before one month from the date of expiry of the terms as provided in the lease. Admittedly the aforementioned agreement came into force with effect from 1.7.1977 and the fixed period of seven years expired on 30.6.1984.
3. Before expiry of the period of one month of the period of the said lease, the petitioner exercised his option for renewal of the period of the said lease for a further period of two years, in terms of the aforementioned clause in the deed and the opposite parties/landlord renewed the said lease for a further period of two years.
4. However, in relation to the aforementioned renewal of the lease for a further period of two years no registered instrument of lease was executed by and between the landlord and the tenant. On the expiry of the further period of two years, the petitioner by a letter dated 3.5.1986 prayed for renewal of the period of the said lease for a further period of one year.
5. According to the opposite parties this prayer of the petitioner was allowed in terms of Section 18(1) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982. This said period also expired on 30.7.1987, whereupon the opposite parties filed an application purported to be under Section 18(3) of the said Act and by reason of the impugned judgment, the learned court below directed the petitioner to vacate the suit premises, failing which the landlord will be entitled to get the same through due process of the court and further directed the petitioner to pay the penal rent at the rate of Rs. 140 per day to the opposite parties from 1.7.1987 till the suit premises is vacated by the petitioner.
6. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner raised a short question.
7. According to the learned Counsel, as on the expiry of a period of seven years stipulated under the deed of lease, no registered indenture of lease was executed, the petitioner became a month to month tenant and thus despite the petitioner’s request for renewal of lease for a further period of one year it continued to occupy the tenanted premises as a month to month tenant and in this view of the matter, the application under Section 18 of the said Act was not maintainable.
8. Mr. Amla Kant Choudhary, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, on the other hand, submitted that in view of the fact that in terms of the stipulated covenant contained in the aforementioned indenture of lease dated 11th October, 1987, the petitioner was entitled to get the lease renewed fore further period of two years on the same times and conditions at his option and thus it was not necessary to execute a registered deed of lease and the period of lease stood automatically extended for a farther period of two years. The learned Counsel further submitted that the petitioner itself made a request that the lease be renewed for a further period of two years i.e. 1.7.1984 to 30th June, 1986 and in this view of the matter he did not become a month to month tenant.
9. The learned Counsel further submitted that in reply to the petitioner’s letter for extension of lease for a further period of one year the opposite parties by a letter dated 23.5.1986 categorically stated that such extension of one year in the period of lease would be in terms of Section 18 of the said Act and the petitioner will have to vacate the said premises on the expiry of 30th June, 1987.
10. In view of the rival contention of the parties, as indicated herein before, the only question which arises for consideration in this application is as to whether the deed of lease can be renewed for a fixed period exceeding one year without execution of any registered instrument in this behalf.
11. True it is, that in terms of the aforementioned deed of lease, the petitioner, who was a lessee was entitled to exercise his option to get the lease renewed for a further period of two years. It admittedly exercised its option. and admittedly no further registered instrument was executed.
12. It is now well known that the renewal is a fresh grant and in view of the fact that the renewal of the lease was to exceed a period of one year, in terms of Section 107 of Transfer of Property Act read with Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, such an instrument was compulsorily registrable.
13. As admittedly a registered deed of lease was not executed, in law the petitioner became a month to month tenant and thus the question of renewal of lease for a further period of one year in terms of Section 18 of the Act was not arise.
14. True it is, that the petitioner applied for renewal of a further period of one year purported to be on the belief that it can exercise the said option in terms of Section 18 of the said Act but as no registered instrument was executed in respect of the earlier period, in law the petitioner having become a month to month tenant and thus it could be evicted only if one or the other factors enumerated in Section 11 of the Act was attracted.
15. As the petitioner, in the eye of law, became a month to month tenant, in my opinion the question of estoppel does not arise as it is well know that there can be no estoppel against statute.
16. As the period of lease from 1.7.1984 to 30th June, 1986 and thereafter from 1.7.1986 to 30th June, 1987, was renewed without executing any registered deed of lease the petitioner having become a month to month tenant, the provision of Section 18 of the said Act can have no application and thus the impugned judgment passed by the learned court below must be held to be wholly without jurisdiction and is thus liable to be set aside.
17. In the result this civil revision application is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
18. Before parting with this case, it may be mentioned that by an order dated 13.7.1988 passed by this Court the petitioner was directed to deposit sum of Rs. 5,000 and the opposite parties were allowed to withdraw the aforementioned amount without prejudice to their rights and contention. As no registered instrument was executed for renewal of the deed lease from 1.7.1984 to 30th June, 1987 and the petitioner became a month to month tenant, the said amount at the option of the opposite parties may be adjusted towards the arrears rents but without prejudice to their rights, if any.
19. In the result, this application is allowed but in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.