( 1 ) IN this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is the owner of the land bearing Survey No. 395 measuring 3 acres 25 guntas of Bagalkot village, Bija,pur District, has challenged the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Bagalkot, in KLRT SR 469 dated 8-2-1977 granting the occupancy right in favour of the 2nd respondent. ( 2 ) THE case of the 2nd respondent was that she became the tenant of the land in question under a registered lease deed dated 23-12-1966 on a rent of Rs. 200/- per year and the lease deed executed was for a period of 5 years and thereafter, she continued to remain in possession and cultivated the same personally as a tenant and that she has not been dispossessed from the land in question in accordance with law even after the expiry of the period mentioned in the aforesaid deed. On the contrary the contention, of the petitioner was that the land was not leased to the petitioner, but she was only the mortgagee in possession as the land wag given to her on Undubiduva Kararu. Accordingly, it was contended that the 2nd respondent did not become the tenant of the land in question; hence she was not entitled to be registered as an occupant of the land in question. The Tribunal on consideration of the aforesaid deed produced before it, and also on the basis of the statement made by the parties, came to the conclusion that the deed in question was a lease deed and the 2nd respondent was cultivating the land in question as tenant and accordingly granted the occupancy right in favour of the 2nd respondent. ( 3 ) SHRI B. V. Krishnaswamy Rap, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the interpretation placed by the Tribunal that the deed-Exhibit-B is a lease deed, is not correct and he further contended that the deed in question is one of mortgage inasmuch as the land was given on undubiduva Kararu; therefore, no tenancy was created by the petitioner. Hence, the order of the Tribunal is unsustainable. ( 4 ) ON going through the deed-Exhibit 'b it is dear that it is a lease deed and not a mortgage. In the beginning of the document it is described as a lease deed and the yearly rent is also mentioned in the deed. Hence, the order of the Tribunal is unsustainable. ( 4 ) ON going through the deed-Exhibit 'b it is dear that it is a lease deed and not a mortgage. In the beginning of the document it is described as a lease deed and the yearly rent is also mentioned in the deed. Further it has been specifically stated that the rent for a period of 5 years amouning to Rs. 1000/ -. has been paid to the petitioner. Of course, there is a recital in the deed to the effect that after the expiry of a period of 5 years the 2nd respondent was to deliver possession of the land to the petitioner. Such a recital is not inconsistent with the document being a lease deed. As already stated, the parties have agreed for leasing the land on yearly basis and it has been stated in the document that the land has been leased for a period of five years and an yearly rent has also been fixed and the document does not disclose that there was a relationship of debtor and creditor between the parties. Thus, from the recitals contained in the document the intention of the parties is clear that they intended to create a lease and not a mortgage. Merely because the rental amount for a period of 5 years has been paid by the 2nd respondent in advance and the further recital in the document that after the expiry of the period of five years, the possession of the land must be given to the petitioner it cannot be said that the same have the effect of converting the lease into a mortgage and further the said recitals cannot be taken as an indication of the intention of the parties to create a mortgage and not a lease. As far as the recital in the document that after the expiry of the period of 5 years, the land must go back to the owner is concerned it is of no consequence inasmuch as the lease continued even after the expiry of the period of five years in view of the provisions contained in Section 6 of the karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, which are as follows: "no tenancy of any land shall be terminated merely on the ground that the period fixed for its duration whether by agreement or otherwise has expired. " ( 5 ) THEREFORE, the contention of Sri B. V. Krishnaswamy Rao that in view of the recitals contained in the document to deliver possession of the land to the owner after the expiry of 5 years is an indicative of the nature of the document being a mortgage and not a lease cannot at all be accepted. Thus, it is clear that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal cannot at all be said to be either illegal or capricious or unreasonable or unjust so as to call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .