BILAL NAZKI, J. ( 1 ) DEFENDANTS in O. S. No. 127 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsif, Gannavaram have filed the second appeal being S. A. No. 5 of 2002. The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking possession of the plaint schedule site by evicting the defendants. They also claimed damages for use and occupation of the plaint schedule property to the tune of rs. 11,520/- being three years rent at the rate of Rs. 320. 00 per month for a period from 18-6-1984 to 17-6-1987 and for costs. A decree was passed by the trial Court to vacate the suit premises and the defendants were directed to deliver the vacant possession of the property to the plaintiffs within three months from the date of decree. They were also directed to pay damages and costs. An appeal was taken before the Senior civil Judge, Gudivada. The appeal was also dismissed. Six months time was given to vacate the suit schedule property. Second appeal was filed in this Court. ( 2 ) THE defendant No. 1 also filed another suit being O. S. No. 134 of 1990 for a decree directing the defendants to execute a renewal lease for a further period of 30 years from 1-8-1987 at a yearly rent of Rs. 480. 00 or for specific performance of the agreement of lease. This suit was dismissed. Since there are two suits, therefore the parties are referred to as landlords and tenants . ( 3 ) THE landlords contended in their suit that the first defendant is Bharat Petroleum corporation and the second defendant is its authorized dealer. The plaint schedule property was taken on lease on 1-8-1957 from them to erect pumps together with underground tanks and other fittings for storage of petrol etc. and for carrying on business in such products by Messrs burmah-shell oil storage and distributing company limited and the agreed annual rent for the plaint schedule premises was fixed at rs. 360/ -. Originally the lease was an oral lease and it was for a period of 30 years. One of the terms of the oral lease was that the tenants could continue the lease for another 30 years in case the rent was enhanced to rs. 480/- per annum. An agreement was executed by the parties on 19-3-1963. 360/ -. Originally the lease was an oral lease and it was for a period of 30 years. One of the terms of the oral lease was that the tenants could continue the lease for another 30 years in case the rent was enhanced to rs. 480/- per annum. An agreement was executed by the parties on 19-3-1963. The landlords contended that the second defendant erected sheds in the schedule site for his residential purposes and he sublet a portion of the plaint schedule site to others for running business in tyres. As the act of the second defendant was in violation of the terms of the lease agreed upon, the landlords issued a registered notice on 27-9-1980 terminating the tenancy by the end of October, 1980 and called upon the tenants to deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule site by 1-11-1980. On 14-10-1980 the tenants issued a reply notice denying their liability to vacate the premises and stated that they would continue till 31-7-1987. The landlords contended that as the alleged lease was for 30 years, it could be created by registered instrument, which was mandatory condition, but it was not complied with. The landlords further contended that since the lease was oral, therefore it was a monthly lease and could be terminated by a quit notice. The landlords refused to accept the rents from 1-10-1980 to 31-3-1981. The tenants, however, did not pay the rents thereafter. The landlords, on 11-4-1987, again issued a registered notice to the tenants to vacate the plaint schedule site by the end of July, 1987. After receipt of the said notice the tenants came forward with a reply on 22-4-1987 claiming that as per the Section 7, sub-clause (3) of Burmah-Shell (Acquisition of undertakings in India) Act, 1976 they were desirous to renew the lease for a further period of 30 years commencing from 1-8-1987. The landlords further contended that since the lease stood terminated by the end of October, 1980 in view of the quit notice, the tenants were in possession of the schedule site in the capacity of trespassers. On 22-4-1987 there was no lease existing and there was no option for the tenants under section 7 sub-clause (3) of the Burmah-Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act. ( 4 ) IN the written statement the defendant no. On 22-4-1987 there was no lease existing and there was no option for the tenants under section 7 sub-clause (3) of the Burmah-Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act. ( 4 ) IN the written statement the defendant no. 1/tenant admitted the contents of the original lease, but contended that he and his predecessors in interest have been in possession of the plaint schedule site and have not violated any covenant in the lease agreement. The defendant No. 1/tenant admitted the landlords ownership over the plaint schedule property. He denied that the second defendant/tenant erected a shed in the plaint schedule site for his residential purposes. He also denied that the second defendant/tenant sublet a portion of the plaint schedule site for running business in tyres. ( 5 ) ON the basis of these pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial court, (1) Whether the lease between the plaintiffs and 1st defendant can be treated as monthly lease because the lease was created orally and can it be terminated by a quit notice? (2) Whether the lease between plaintiff and 1st defendant stood terminated by end of October, 1980? (3) Whether the defendants are trespassers in the plaint schedule site from 1-11-1980 onwards? (4) Whether the 1st defendant would not avail the option under Section 7 (3) of the Burmah-Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1976? (5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to evict the defendants and recover vacant possession of the plaint schedule site? (6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any damages, and if so, to what amount? (7) To what relief? ( 6 ) THE first defendant/tenant contended in his suit i. e. , O. S. No. 134 of 1990 that there was an unregistered lease deed dt. 19-3-1963 between the landlords and Burmah-Shell Oil storage and Distributing Company of India limited and the schedule property had been leased out for a period of 30 years from 1-8-1957 on a yearly rent of Rs. 360. 00. Burmah-shell company was taken over by the Government of India and vested with the Central Government under the provisions of Burmah-shell (Acquisition of undertakings in India) Act, 1976 and thus the leasehold rights of the Burmah-Shell company over the plaint schedule property had been vested upon the tenant and as per clause 3, sub-clause (3) of the lease deed dt. Burmah-shell company was taken over by the Government of India and vested with the Central Government under the provisions of Burmah-shell (Acquisition of undertakings in India) Act, 1976 and thus the leasehold rights of the Burmah-Shell company over the plaint schedule property had been vested upon the tenant and as per clause 3, sub-clause (3) of the lease deed dt. 19-3-1963 the tenant was entitled to opt for renewal of lease for a further term of 30 years from the expiration of the said time on an enhanced rental value of Rs. 480. 00 per annum. In this suit, the following issues were framed, (1) Whether the suit is filed by proper authority on behalf of plaintiff? (2) Whether the alleged lease is valid without a registered document? (3) Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to equitable relief of specific performance due to the change in circumstances? (4) Whether the suit is in time? (5) Whether the court fee paid is correct? (6) To what relief? ( 7 ) NOW the only question, which has been raised before this Court and which is material is whether the original lease was for a period of 30 years. If the original lease was for 30 years, then the effect of the provisions of Burmah-shell (Acquisition of undertakings in India) Act, 1976 would have to be gone into. If the lease was a monthly lease and if it was terminated before the option was exercised by the tenants, then nothing would survive. Both the Courts below have found that though originally it was an oral lease, it was reduced into writing in 1963, but it was an unregistered lease. An un-registered lease would not, in my view, make the lease a yearly lease. In this case reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the landlords on the judgment of the Supreme court reported in Samir Mukherjee v. Davinder K. Bajaj and others1. The Supreme court held,"section 106 of the Transfer of Property act, 1882 lays down a rule of construction, which is to apply when the parties have not specifically agreed upon as to whether the lease is yearly or monthly. The Supreme court held,"section 106 of the Transfer of Property act, 1882 lays down a rule of construction, which is to apply when the parties have not specifically agreed upon as to whether the lease is yearly or monthly. On a plain reading of this section it is clear that Legislature has classified leases in two categories according to their purposes and this section would be attracted to construe the duration of a valid lease in the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary. Where the parties by a contract have indicated the duration of a lease this section would not apply. What this section does is to prescribe the duration of the period of different kinds of leases by legal fiction - leases for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be lease from year to year and all other leases shall be deemed to be from month to month. Existence of a valid lease is a prerequisite to invoke the rule of construction embodied in section 106 of the Transfer of Property act. Section 107 prescribes the procedure for execution of a lease between the parties. Under the first paragraph of this section a lease of immovable property from year to year or for any term exceeding one year or reserving yearly rent can be made only by registered instrument and remaining classes of leases are governed by the second paragraph that is to say all other leases of immovable property can be made either by registered instrument or by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession. " ( 8 ) THEREFORE, the Supreme Court was emphatic that under first paragraph of section 107 a lease of immovable property from year to year or for any term exceeding one year or reserving yearly rent can only be made by registered instrument. Admittedly there is no registered instrument in this case. Therefore, it could not be a yearly lease. The tenancy could be terminated in the year 1980 when the quit notice was given by the landlords to the tenants. Therefore, the questions framed do not arise in this case. ( 9 ) AS far as the suit for specific performance which was filed by the tenant, suffice it to say that the agreement on which he relied and of which he wanted specific performance was not registered and could not be enforced. Therefore, the questions framed do not arise in this case. ( 9 ) AS far as the suit for specific performance which was filed by the tenant, suffice it to say that the agreement on which he relied and of which he wanted specific performance was not registered and could not be enforced. ( 10 ) THE appeals are accordingly dismissed. At this stage the learned Counsel for the appellants seeks some time to vacate the suit site. In the interest of justice, three months time is granted for vacation of the suit site, provided the appellants give an undertaking within two weeks that they shall vacate the suit site and hand over to the landlords on or before 14th September, 2002.