Order This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 15.9.2008, passed by learned District Judge, Singhbhum East at Jamshedpur in Eviction Appeal No. 26 of 2007, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment dated 27.9.2007, passed by learned Subordinate Judge-V, Singhbhum East at Jamshedpur in Eviction Suit No. 170 of 1989. 2. Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the tenant-appellant, submitted that the suit could not be decreed as the document-Ext.-3 creating fixed term tenancy for 11 months was required to be registered, as the tenant was continuing in possession from before the date, with effect from which, such tenancy was created. He relied on 1989 PLJR 1162-Rajendra Behl vs. Desraj Singh. 3. Perused the records. 4. It appears that the said eviction suit was filed by the landlord-respondent on the ground of default and expiry of period of tenancy. The trial court held that the tenant was not defaulter but held him liable to be evicted on the ground of expiry of lease. The tenant preferred appeal before the lower appellate court, which was also dismissed. 5. Learned courts below have inter alia held that the defendant-tenant signed on Ext.-3, dated 2.5.1988 agreeing to take the lease of shop in question on a monthly rental of Rs. 400/- excluding the electricity charges for a period of 11 months with effect from 1.4.1988. It was further held that the tenant signed the said documents after fully knowing the contents thereof and it cannot be believed that it was signed under coercion and pressure. It was further held that the tenant never moved any competent authority against enhancement of rent, or against creating fixed term lease of 11 months by unregistered document, and only when the lease expired and the landlord refused to accept rent, he filed the suit against the landlord to pressurize him. 6. In view of (1997)3 SCC 679 Satish Kumar vs. Zarif Ahmed, the appellant cannot rely on Rajendra Behl (supra). 7. Moreover, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the judgment in the case of Snit. Yamuna Maloo vs. Anand Swarup, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1725 . 6. In view of (1997)3 SCC 679 Satish Kumar vs. Zarif Ahmed, the appellant cannot rely on Rajendra Behl (supra). 7. Moreover, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the judgment in the case of Snit. Yamuna Maloo vs. Anand Swarup, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1725 . (Paragraph 21) is applicable, in which it was held as follows:- "Both in Vohra's case and in Shiv Chander Kapoor's case though not arising for determination in either, it has been stated while laying down the rule that proceeding to challenge limited tenancy has to be taken during the currency of the tenancy, an objection filed by the tenant could be looked into is indeed an obiter. We would like to make it clear that the rule having been stated to the contrary in Vohra's case, there was indeed no warrant to indicate the contra situations. Perhaps to meet the eventuality which might arise in a particular case, neither of the two Benches of this Court wanted to close the avenue of enquiry totally, and that is why in both the cases decided by co-ordinate Benches the exception has also been indicated. It must be understood on the authority of the said two decisions and our judgment now that if the tenant has objection to raise to the validity of the limited tenancy it has to be done prior to the lapse of the lease and not as a defence to the landlord's application for being put into possession. We would like to reiterate that even if such an exercise is available that must be taken to be very limited and made applicable to exceptional situations. Unless the tenant is able to satisfy the Controller that he had no opportunity at all to know the facts earlier and had come to be aware of them only then, should such an objection be entertained." 8. This judgment was followed in the case of Kulbhushan Malik vs. Syed Qamruzzama Rizvi, reported in 1994 (2) BLJ 754 [ : 1995(1) PLJR 569]. 9. In the present case, it is not in dispute that during the period of lease created under Ext.-3, the terms of the lease were performed by the parties, and the rent was paid as specified in the lease. 9. In the present case, it is not in dispute that during the period of lease created under Ext.-3, the terms of the lease were performed by the parties, and the rent was paid as specified in the lease. Both the parties exercised their rights and performed their obligation; and therefore after the contract between the parties were fully performed and acted upon and when creation of such lease was not objected during continuous of the lease, it is not open to the tenant to dispute the validity of the lease, after it's expiry. 2010(4) JLJR 10. In my opinion, no substantial question of 'law is involved in the second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed,