JUDGMENT: This is a plaintiff's appeal against a decree of affirmation passed by the District Judge, Howrah dismissing the plaintiff's suit for ejectment against the defendant who was in possession of a tank with fishing right on the basis of an unregistered lease. The facts of the case which are necessary for the purpose of disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated as follows. 2. The plaintiff appellant leased out the Jalkar right of a tank to the defendant respondent for a period of five years at an annual rental of Rs. 130/- on the basis of an unregistered document. In the said document there was a term for renewal of the lease at an enhanced rent at the sole discretion of the appellant. On the expiry of the term of five years the appellant, however, opted not to renew the lease and asked the respondent to vacate the tank. He also sent a written notice to that effect. The respondent did not vacate the tank and sent a cheque proposing an enhanced rent which was not accepted by the appellant. A suit was subsequently filed to eject the respondent. 3. In the suit before the trial court the respondent claimed a Korfa tenancy in the lank and its sub-soil claiming that he took settlement of the tank and its adjoining bank under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885. 4. The trial court by a lengthy judgment held that the respondent's alleged tenancy was not governed by the Bengal Tenancy Act. It further held that the lease of Jalkar was not valid for want of registration. The Court, however, was of the opinion that the respondent had a valid monthly lease which, however, was not validly determined as the requisite fifteen days' notice was not given under s. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. On appeal the District Judge agreed that it was a monthly lease terminable on fifteen day's notice expiring with the month of tenancy, He, therefore, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the trial court. 5. The only point for determination in this appeal is if the Jalkar granted to the respondent on the basis of the unregistered document created a monthly lease and if fifteen day's notice is necessary for his eviction. As no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent, the appeal is heard ex-parte. 6. Mr. 5. The only point for determination in this appeal is if the Jalkar granted to the respondent on the basis of the unregistered document created a monthly lease and if fifteen day's notice is necessary for his eviction. As no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent, the appeal is heard ex-parte. 6. Mr. Gopal Mukherjee appearing for the appellant argues that a Jalkar or fishing right being a profit a prendre is an immovable property and a lease for 5 years of this right and reserving a yearly rent cannot be created without a registered document, in view of s. 17(1)(d) of the Indian Registration Act, 1980 and s. 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. He also referred to a Supreme Court decision AIR 1977 SC 2149 (The Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fisherman Co-operative Society Ltd v. Sipahi Singh & ors.) in this respect. The legal position in this respect is not disputed and the District Judge has also accepted this position while hearing the first appeal. But according to the first appellate court, though the lease is void in regard to its tenure of five years, it is nevertheless valid as a monthly tenancy. Ext. 1 and its duplicate copy Ext. 'D' show that both parties agreed and intended to create a lease for five years from the ht Baisakh 1369 B.S. to the end of Chaitra 1373 B.S. at an annual rent of Rs. 130/-. Both the five years and reserving a yearly rent require compulsory registration. The first Appellate Court has observed that although the lease for five years failed, a tenancy from month to month according to Bengali almanac came into existence by payment and acceptance of rent. This finding appears to be thoroughly erroneous. The first appellate court has referred to Ext. 'D' 'a purported receipt for the Jalkar) and has observed that the plaintiff had granted receipt calculating the rent @ Rs. 10 83 p. per month which came to Rs. 130/- per year, There is evidently no basis for this observation. Firstly, the rent at the rate of Rs 10 83 p. per month does not bring the total of Rs 130/- per year. Secondly, the written agreement signed by both the parties refer to a yearly rent and not to a monthly rent. 130/- per year, There is evidently no basis for this observation. Firstly, the rent at the rate of Rs 10 83 p. per month does not bring the total of Rs 130/- per year. Secondly, the written agreement signed by both the parties refer to a yearly rent and not to a monthly rent. Thirdly a rent for fishing right is never fixed monthly as it is, generally not compatible with a monthly user. Fourthly, the receipt ext C is no receipt at all It bears no signature of the person granting the receipt. So it is an inadmissible document. It is evidently a forged document. The real receipt is Ext. C(1) which contains the signature of the person granting the receipt and also mentions the yearly rent of Rs. 130/- Ext F is a letter dated 3.4 68 by which the appellant was offered a cheque for Rs. 140/- which was alleged to have been orally agreed between the parties as an annual rent. So it is strange how the District Judge jumped to a conclusion without caring to look at the evidence actually in the Case. I, therefore, reject the finding of the first appellate court that a monthly tenancy was created in this case. 7. Mr. Mukherjee refers to AIR (30) 1943 Allahabad 279 (Sahu Anand Sarup v. S. Taiyab Hasan). In this case the forfeiture of a lease created on the basis of unregistered document was demanded. The High Court held that as a yearly rent was reserved, the document was invalid as a lease and no interest was transferred on its basis. It was argued that in the circumstances a lease could be inferred on some terms other than those mentioned in the document. The Court held that it was not open to the Court to infer a lease from the circumstances of the case on some terms other than those which could be inferred from the document. The Court further held that the fact that the proposed lessees were in possession of the property did not mean that a valid lease was created in their favour or that the interest of the lessor passed to them and that they being in possession without any title to the property must be treated as licensees. 8. In that case I have already shown that no valid monthly lease was created. 8. In that case I have already shown that no valid monthly lease was created. So a notice of fifteen days expiring with the month of tenancy is unwarranted here. The first appellate court's conclusion to that effect is clearly wrong 9. No argument was advanced by anyone in any of the appellate courts regarding, the respondent's claim of Korfa tenancy or Non-agricultural tenancy. In fact the respondent did not appear either in the first appellate Court or before this court. No valid lease being created in this case no transfer of interest was actually made In the circumstances the possession of the respondent in property must be that of a licensee as per decision in AIR (30) 1943 Allahabad 279 referred to above I entirely agree with the above decision of the Allahabad High Court. The licence granted to the respondent has been revoked in this case by the service of a notice. For this purpose the notice is legal, valid and 'sufficient. The respondent defendant is, therefore, liable to be evicted from the suit property. 10. In the result this appeal succeeds. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court and the first appellate court are hereby set aside. The suit be decreed on contest with costs. The plaintiff do get Khas possession of the suit property described in the schedule to the plaint by evicting the defendant therefrom. The plaintiff do also get, on payment of requisite court fees, mesne profits from the defendant from the 1st Baisakh, 1374 B.S. until recovery of possession. The amount of mesne profits shall be decided by a separate proceeding under Order 20, R.l2 C.P. Code by the trial Court. There will be no order for costs in this appeal. Appeal allowed; suit decreed.