Judgment :- Ramachandran Nair. J. This appeal is filed by a registered exporter of marine products challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge upholding the respondents’ proposal to cancel registration on account of expiry of the lease agreement, the appellant had with the land owner. The first respondent- Marine products Export Development Authority (for short ‘the MPEDA’) is a statutory body fully under the control of Government of India, which is formed to regulate and promote export of marine products. The regulations prescribed provide for separate registration for marine product exporters as also for processing units. The appellant is granted registration as an exporter of marine products, vide Ext. P2, which is valid up to 26/12/2010. It is seen that initial registration was granted several yeas back and the same was being renewed every two years. Similarly, the appellant was initially granted registration for their processing plant by the first respondent in 1998 and for the last ten years, the registration was renewal periodically every two years. The said registration, Viz., Ext.P3 was getting expired on 5/01/2009. The appellant applied for renewal of the same. However, since the lease was expiring on 10/01/2009, the first respondent declined to renew the registration for processing plant is permissible only if lease is for a minimum period of two years. The appellant could not obtain fresh lease deed from the landlord extending the lease up to or beyond two years and consequently, vide Ext. P7, the registration granted to the appellant’s processing plant was not renewed by the MPEDA. The appellant’s case is that the landlord though declined to renew the lease agreement, has just gone to court and it will take years for physical eviction of the appellant, if at all the same happens. However, since the first respondent declined to renew the registration, the appellant approached this Court With a Writ petition seeking for appropriate direction to the MPEDA for renewal of registration. The learned single Judge held that since the regulation requires minimum two years lease for granting of registration, the MPEDA was justified in declining to renew the registration for non-production of lease agreement valid for two years by appellant. It is, against this judgment, the appellant has filed this Writ appeal. 2. We have heard Senior Counsel Sri.R.D.Shenoy, appearing for the appellant and Senior counsel Sri.Joseph Markose appearing for the first respondent. 3. It is, against this judgment, the appellant has filed this Writ appeal. 2. We have heard Senior Counsel Sri.R.D.Shenoy, appearing for the appellant and Senior counsel Sri.Joseph Markose appearing for the first respondent. 3. The facts are not disputed inasmuch as the appellant is enjoying registration for their processing unit for over ten years and there is no allegation of any violation or other disentitlement for renewal of registration for the processing plant by the MPEDA. The reason for refusal of renewal is only on account of the expiry of lease and failure of the appellant to get fresh lease agreement for the minimum period of two years. The condition for registration of processing unit is prescribed by the MPEDA through guidelines which are framed by the technical committees constituted by the MPEDA. The relevant clause is extracted herein below:- “On consideration of the matter the Committee decided that the minimum period Of lease of the premises should be 2 years for Processing plants. Before giving registration it would therefore be ensured that the Premises are on lease a least for 2 years.” 4. Senior counsel appearing for the appellant contended that two years minimum period for lease is required for granting registration for the first time and the said rule cannot be applied for renewal later. This Senior counsel appearing for the MPEDA, on the other hand, contended that the regulation is same for initial grant of registration and for renewal of the same. In our view, the regulation has to be considered in a realistic manner inasmuch as lease are not granted on permanent basis. Even on expiry of lease, the tenants are allowed to continue during the pendency of litigation and invariably in every case, courts grant reasonable time for tenants to rehabilitate themselves from the evicted premises. Going by the time taken, in civil courts or rent control courts for eviction, it is within everybody’s knowledge that physical eviction will take not less than two years. Therefore, in our view, even if lease period is expiring, the appellant can reasonably be expected to continue at least for a period of two years. Going by the time taken, in civil courts or rent control courts for eviction, it is within everybody’s knowledge that physical eviction will take not less than two years. Therefore, in our view, even if lease period is expiring, the appellant can reasonably be expected to continue at least for a period of two years. It is seen that the appellant is enjoying registration for the processing plant for last over ten years and therefore, in our view, it is absolutely arbitrary on the part of the first respondent not to have renewed the registration at least until physical eviction of the appellant from the processing plant though not for the period of two years applied for . MPEDA‘s object is essentially to promote export of marine products and not to destroy the industry by ordering closure of processing units which are essentially freezing plants established at very high cost. We are of the view that a person who enjoys valid registration for export and is continuing in the trade with registration for over ten years should not be easily dislocated through the process of cancellation or refusal to renew registration. The litigation between the appellant and the landlord is in the initial stage and the first respondent has no case that there is any chance for the appellant’s physical eviction in the near future. Regulations recognize establishment of processing units in leased premises. Therefore, in our view, once registration to the processing plant located in leased premises is granted based on two years lease period, renewal of registration should be granted periodically until eviction of the processor from his premises. We, therefore, allow the writ appeal by vacating the judgment of the learned single Judge, with a direction to the MPEDA to renew their registration with a condition that the same will stand automatically cancelled on the date of closure of the processing plant in the course of eviction of the appellant either under court orders or under agreement between the tenant and land owner or up to a maximum period of two years whichever is earlier. If eviction does not take place, the appellant is free to apply for renewal of registration again after the expiry of two years, which is also to be granted so long as the appellant is not physically evicted from the property. If eviction does not take place, the appellant is free to apply for renewal of registration again after the expiry of two years, which is also to be granted so long as the appellant is not physically evicted from the property. We make it clear that for retaining the registration, the appellant is bound to observe all other formalities and requirements of MPEDA.