JUDGMENT P.N. Goel, J. - In this appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 26-5.1969 passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court, exercising the powers of Civil Judge, Meerut in Civil Appeal No. 615 of 1968, the main question for consideration is whether the defendant respondent was/is a lessee of the appellants or a licensee whose licence cannot be revoked. 2. This question arises in this manner. There is a piece of land belonging to a trust called Shri Sheoji Mandir Maharaj Trust, Chepiyan in a locality named Chepi Talav in the town of Meerut (appellant No. 1). Murari Lal, Ram Kishan and Ishwar Saran are its trustees This piece of land was given to the respondent for making buildings. Exact year in which the land was given is not known. The only fact which is known is that originally the respondent used to pay @ Rs. 2 p.m. to the trust for the use of the land. In September, 1941, this amount was raised to Rs. 4 p. m. A bilateral unregistered rent note, Ex. 5, came into existence on 10-9-1941 @ Rs. 4 p. m. Later on the amount was raised to Rs. 6 p. m The case of the appellants was that the respondent was a tenant, that he had not paid rent from 27-5-1960 and that his tenancy was determined by means of a notice under Section 106 of the T. P. Act. The appellants consequently brought suit for ejectment of the respondent and for recovery of arrears of rent. 3. The respondent contended that he was a permanent licensee, that acting on the licence he made constructions of a permanent nature, that he was not liable to be ejected and that in any case he was a permanent lessee. 4. The Munsif City who tried the suit, in view of the decision in the case of Anand Sarup v. S. Taiyab Hasan, AIR 1943 Allahabad 279, held that the respondent was a licensee and as such was not liable to be ejected, because he had made constructions of a permanent character on the land in suit. This view of the trial court has been affirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court. 5. Distinction between a lease and a licence is rather thin and sometimes quite obscure. This view of the trial court has been affirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court. 5. Distinction between a lease and a licence is rather thin and sometimes quite obscure. Payment of an amount periodically, either monthly or yearly, is by itself not sufficient to determine the nature of the relationship between the owner of the land and its occupant However, there is a broad distinction between a licence and a lease The lease necessarily creates an interest in the land in favour of the lessee. But in the case of a licence, no interest is created in the land of it is an entirely different matter that the grantor may not be able to revoke the licence for the conditions laid down in Section 60 of the Indian Easements Act. There is another distinction between the two. The licence is granted for a specified purpose. The period for which the licence is granted is not necessarily defined. Therefore, a licence can be granted either orally or by an unregistered instrument. The lease is made for a certain time. In cases covered by Section 107 of the T. P. Act, the lease should be bilateral and by means of a registered instrument. To elucidate this distinction it will be appropriate to indicate the provisions of Section 52 of the Indian Easements Act and Sections 105 and 107 of the T. P. Act. Section 52 clearly lays down that where one person grants to another a right to do or continue to do in or upon his immovable property something which would, in the absence of such right be unlawful and such right does not amount to an easement or an interest in the property, the right is called a licence. Section 105 of the T. P. Act lays down that a lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property made for a certain time, in consideration of money etc. to be rendered periodically or on specified occasions. Section 107 then provides 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 and that it should be executed by both lessor and lessee. to be rendered periodically or on specified occasions. Section 107 then provides 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 and that it should be executed by both lessor and lessee. This section further lays down that all other leases of immovable property can be made either by a registered instrument or by an oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession. This section thus lays down that if a lease is made for a period exceeding one year, it should be by a registered instrument executed by both the parties. In case the lease is for a period of one year or less, it can be made in two ways :- (1) by a registered instrument, or (2) by an oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession. 6. In this connection averment may be made to Section 106 of the T.P. Act. This section will apply only if a valid lease in accordance with Section 107 has come into existence. This section is subject to a contract to the contrary. The general rule which it lays down is that if the lease is for agricultural or manufacturing purposes, it shall be deemed to be from year to year and if the lease is for any other purpose, it shall be deemed to be from month to month. 7. In the present case the only thing which undisputedly appears on record is that the respondent was given land to make building constructions. The respondent did make constructions. The time was not fixed. In these circumstances it can easily be said that the land was given to the respondent for a specified purpose and not for a certain time. In this aspect of the matter the main ingredient of Section 52 of the Indian Easements Act is satisfied and the main ingredient of Section 105 of the T.P. Act is not satisfied. 8. In the plaint the appellants came to the court with the bare allegation that the respondent was tenant of the suit sand at Rs. 6 p. m. The appellants did not mention since when the respondent was a tenant at the said rate. They did not at all mention on what terms the respondent was admitted to the land. 8. In the plaint the appellants came to the court with the bare allegation that the respondent was tenant of the suit sand at Rs. 6 p. m. The appellants did not mention since when the respondent was a tenant at the said rate. They did not at all mention on what terms the respondent was admitted to the land. The evidence, however, shows undisputedly that the respondent was originally admitted at Rs. 2 p.m. There is no document of the inception of the relationship between the parties at Rs. 2 p.m. the appellants have tiled a bilateral rent deed, six. 5, dated 10-9-1941. It is an unregistered document. It gives the terms of the tenancy. One of the terms of the tenancy is that the land was given for a period of 4 years. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 107 of the T. P. Act, it should have been registered, but it was not registered. If a lease for a period exceeding one year comes into existence by an unregistered document, the question is whether it operates as a leave or licence. In the face of the specified provisions of Section 107, such a document cannot be construed as a lease. In the case of Anand Sarup (AIR 1913 Allahabad 279) cited above, which has been relied on by the courts below, it was clearly held that if a lease for a term exceeding one year was created by means of an unregistered document, it would not amount to a lease and that is would amount to a licence. In the case of Sahu Anand Sarup, land was given by the Zamindars. The defendant then made constructions thereon with the permission of the Zamindars. It was clearly held that the defendant was a licensee, whose licence could not be revoked in view of the provisions of Section 60 of the Easements Act. This case gives a complete answer to the question involved. So far as the document Ex 5, is concerned, this document created the rights between the parties afresh. 9. It is further undisputed that the rent of Rs 4 was raised to Rs. This case gives a complete answer to the question involved. So far as the document Ex 5, is concerned, this document created the rights between the parties afresh. 9. It is further undisputed that the rent of Rs 4 was raised to Rs. 6 p.m. There is no evidence worth the name that the terms incorporated in Ex 5 were changed Accordingly to the appellants a fresh rent note at Rs 6 p.m. came into existence, but the appellants did not choose to file it in the case. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants has cited some cases with a view to show that the status of the respondent was that of lessee and that the document, Ex. 5 could be seen for collateral purposes. These eases are : (1) Muralidhar Kulthia v. Smt. Tara Dye, AIR 1953 Calcutta 349. In this case certain premises in all probability building was sold by a registered sale deed. The purchaser then leased the premises to the seller for 5 years. On the expiry of the period of the lease, the purchaser wanted vacant possession. There was evidence that rent was paid and accepted. The purchaser had given evidence to prove the nature of the transaction. The seller did not give any evidence. In these circumstances, it as held that if there was possession under a void or invalid lease, there was tenancy at will. In this case the question of licence was not at all considered. (2) Ram Kumar Das v. Jagdish Chandra Deo, AIR 1952 Supreme Court 23. In this case the defendant had executed a register kabuliat in favour of the receiver for a period of 10 years. After the expiry of the stipulated period, the defendants' ejectment was sought. The defendant claimed that he was a permanent tenant. It was held that the Kabuliat, though registered, did not operate as a lease as it did not fulfil the requirements of Section 107 of the T P. Act. Despite the fact that the land was taken for building structures, it was not asserted on behalf of the defendant that he was a licensee whose licence could not be revoked. It was held that the Kabuliat, though registered, did not operate as a lease as it did not fulfil the requirements of Section 107 of the T P. Act. Despite the fact that the land was taken for building structures, it was not asserted on behalf of the defendant that he was a licensee whose licence could not be revoked. The relevant observation reads as follows at p. 26) : "So far as the first point is concerned the courts below have proceeded on the view that a registered instrument signed by the landlord was necessary to create a valid lease for ten years. That view was not questioned before us and we express no opinion on this point. Proceeding, therefore, on the assumption that even though the parties might have intended to create a lease for 10 years, no operative lease came into existence; the only facts admitted are that the defendant remained in possession of the land belonging to the plaintiff with the permission of the Receiver who represented the plaintiff's estate, and paid rent to the latter. From these facts a tenancy could be fairly presumed and the point for determination is. what was the duration of the tenancy that was created in the present case." It will be noticed that even in this case it was not considered whether the provisions of the Easements Act relating to licence applied or not. (3) Sardar Amar Singh v. Smt. Surinder Kaur, AIR 1975 Madhya Pradesh 230 (F.B.) In this case the plaintiff had purchased a house from defendant No. 1 by means of a registered sale deed. The defendant No. 1 then took the house on rent at Rs. 170 p.m. for one year for non-residential purposes. Defendant No. 1 sublet the premises to defendant No. 2. The plaintiff brought suit for ejectment. It was contended on behalf of the defendants that the lease deed as not a registered document and it could not be admitted in evidence. It was not contended that the defendants were the licensees. In these circumstances it was observed (at p. 2351 :) "In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are clearly of the view that the unregistered lease deed can be used to show the nature and character of possession of the defendants and virtually from the status of the applicants (defendants) as tenant in the premises can as well be established. In these circumstances it was observed (at p. 2351 :) "In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are clearly of the view that the unregistered lease deed can be used to show the nature and character of possession of the defendants and virtually from the status of the applicants (defendants) as tenant in the premises can as well be established. "As already stated earlier, the unregistered lease deed cannot be used to prove the terms of the lease. Thus, it cannot be used to show the period of the lease and the rent on which the premises were demised. However, when from the nature of possession and the relationship established between the applicants and the non-applicant, if a tenancy can be said to be proved, then by virtue of Section 106 of the T. P. Act , a monthly tenancy between the parties can be presumed." (4) J.N. Banerjee v. Sohan Lal Bhargava, AIR 1971 Delhi 243. In this case the dispute related to a constructed building house. The plaintiff sought ejectment of the defendant on the ground that he bonafide required the premises for his own residence. A bitateral document creating lease was executed by the parties. It was clearly stipulated that the tenant would not sublet, assign or part with possession of the premises or a part thereof. No particular period was fixed. The defendant contended that the suit was mala fide, that the premises had been let out to him for residence and professional purposes. There was no legally valid and binding rent note between the parties. The rent note was not admissible in evidence as it was not registered. It will be seen that tenancy was not disputed. The defendant did not contend that he was licensee. It was held that the rent note could be considered for collateral purposes and the absence of registration would not prevent the admitted contents of Clause 8 of the deed being seen for determining the purposes for which the property was let. 11. It shall be noticed that the four cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants do not decide the point involved in the present case. The four cases do not lay down any law against the one laid down by this court in the case of Anand Sarup ( AIR 1943 Allahabad 279) cited above. 11. It shall be noticed that the four cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants do not decide the point involved in the present case. The four cases do not lay down any law against the one laid down by this court in the case of Anand Sarup ( AIR 1943 Allahabad 279) cited above. Therefore, the appellant cannot take any advantage from the four cases. 12. Taking into consideration the entire facts of the present case, it cannot Fe said that the courts below have committed any error in following the principles laid down in the case of Sahu Anand Sarup. Besides, it has clearly been indicated above that the provisions of licence contained in Section 52 fully apply to the present case and the provisions of Section 105 of the T.P. Act do not apply to it. 13. The learned counsel for the appellants next pointed out that in the previous suit No. 383 of 1960 inter parties, despite the contention of the respondent that he was licensee, it was held that he was tenant-lessee and the appellants' suit was specifically decreed for rent on 25-2-1963 (Ex. 2). The earlier suit for eviction of the respondent was dismissed on the ground that notice of ejectment was not valid. The respondent did not contest his liability to pay at the rate claimed by the appellants for the use of the land. Therefore, he did not file an appeal. The contention of the respondent is and was that the nature of the relation. ship between the parties qua the suit land was that of licensee and license. In case, the previous suit had been decreed for ejectment and the respondent had not filed an appeal against the decree, the finding recorded in the previous suit would have been effective against the respondent as to the relationship between the parties. But the suit for ejectment was dismissed. The respondent had no occasion to file an appeal. In this circumstance, finding in the earlier suit that the respondent was a lessee cannot be effective in the present subsequent case. 14. The view of the above, appeal is without merit. 15. Appeal is dismissed with costs.