JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. This Court has heard the issue at a good length on the question of admission itself. Therefore, I would like to adjudicate the matter instantly. 2. Admittedly, respondent Smt. Champa Bisht is the owner/landlady of the property, in question, which is popularly known under the name and style of ‘Sharda Hotel/Restaurant’ and such premises is the part of a big building renowned as ‘Vikas Hotel’ in Almora town. Smt. Bisht delivered the possession of such property to the revisionist Jagdish Singh Satwal on a lease to come into operation with effect from 1.1.2007. To that effect, a deed was also drafted between the parties. It was an un-registered document having five-years’ tenure, viz. such lease had to come to an end on 1.1.2012. The period, as indicated above, expired and a legal notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’) was issued by the landlady on 25.11.2013 thereby terminating the tenancy and asking Mr. Satwal to vacate the premises within thirty dates, which he did not comply. So, the case was launched under the U.P. Rent Control Act but at some later point of time, since it was realized that the rent being more than rupees two thousand per mensem, hence such proceedings were taken back or dismissed by the court concerned, with the result, the S.C.C. Suit No.3 of 2014 was preferred by the landlady Smt. Bisht and the court below, vide the impugned judgment dated 25.3.2016, has decreed the same directing Mr. Satwal to vacate the premises within one month along with an amount of Rs.39,365/- besides the interest @ 9 percent per annum from the date of filing the suit till the amount is actually paid. 3. The main controversy, inter alia, remains that whether Mr. Satwal has sublet the tenanted premises to one Mr. Devendra Singh Bisht. Although, Mr. Satwal has denied such subletting but the court below has decided this issue against him and found that actually, the tenanted premises was sublet by Mr. Satwal in favour of Mr. Devendra Singh Bisht. The basis of arriving at such a finding has been enumerated by learned District Judge in paragraph no.22 of his judgment wherein it was categorically found that Mr. Satwal in favour of Mr. Devendra Singh Bisht. The basis of arriving at such a finding has been enumerated by learned District Judge in paragraph no.22 of his judgment wherein it was categorically found that Mr. Satwal is a permanent employee of ‘Alka Hotel’ from 1.5.2005 to 21.5.2013 and his PPF was deducted/deposited in his account regularly during this period. So, in the opinion of the court below, it was evidently proved that Mr. Satwal, being the permanent employee of ‘Alka Hotel’ and that too in another place i.e. Nainital, had sublet the hotel premises to Mr. Devendra Singh Bisht. 4. In my opinion, a person may keep himself occupied in running some other business for the purpose of augmenting his income, nonetheless, he is an employee of some private concern like Alka Hotel; such hotel, being in another city, also does not hamper the ways and means in this regard. But at the same time, it is difficult to overlook the evidence of tenant Mr. Satwal. Paragraph no.27 of his cross-examination reveals that he has denied his permanent employment in Alka Hotel. But simultaneously, he has accepted his visits in such hotel for the purpose of work. It seems that he is trying to blow hot and cold in the same breath and thus, has strived to conceal the truth before the court as regards his employment in Alka Hotel. However, that may not be a real issue for the reason that he had all the liberty to be engaged in running another business/hotel to augment his income, nonetheless, being in employment with some other employer. 5. The whole evidence reflects that Mr. Devendra Singh Bisht is having some status and he is running Sharda Hotel/Restaurant, in question, at Almora. What is the status of Mr. Bisht, is blurred and the evidence in this regard leads to a irresistible conclusion that Mr. Satwal has only three employees to run this institution; their names are Shyam (Cook), Mohan Singh (Waiter) and Pratap Singh (Helper). So, in that way, Mr. Satwal could not decisively prove that Mr. Bisht is the manager or under his employment for the hotel. That being the situation, the status of Mr. Devendra Singh Bisht is definitely other than the manager or an employee of Mr. So, in that way, Mr. Satwal could not decisively prove that Mr. Bisht is the manager or under his employment for the hotel. That being the situation, the status of Mr. Devendra Singh Bisht is definitely other than the manager or an employee of Mr. Satwal and in such an eventuality, it can be discerned that such position should be either of co-owner or co-partner with Mr. Satwal for the purpose of running the hotel. At the time of handing over the premises, on lease, to Mr. Satwal, the latter was the sole tenant and Mr. Devendra Singh Bisht was nowhere. It is, therefore, clear that Mr. Satwal has sublet the property, in question, which is against the express covenant of the lease deed. 6. In addition thereto, it is pertinent to mention here that the lease deed was for a specific period, commencing from 1.1.2007 and coming to an end on 1.1.2012. So, after expiration of this period, the lease automatically came to an end. At this stage, learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the landlady Smt. Champa Bisht continued to receive the rent even after the period of lease was over and in that case, the status of Mr. Satwal was of a tenant by holding over, as envisaged u/s 116 of the Act. I am unable to agree with this contention for the reason that if the tenant deposits the rent either in the Court or in the bank account of the landlord, even without his/her consent, it does not lead to an inference that the landlord has accepted the rent at his/her own volly. 7. That apart, Section 111(a) of the Act also contemplates that the lease of immovable property is determined ‘by efflux of time limited thereby’. So, the lease, in question, will be accepted in that spirit, as contemplated under the aforesaid provision, and thus, there was no need for issuance of the notice even under Section 106 of the Act. 8. One more thing is noteworthy to be mentioned here that undisputedly the lease deed, so executed, was an un-registered document and as per Section 17 of the Registration Act, any lease from year to year or more shall compulsorily be registered whereas, Section 49 of the same Act postulates about the effect of non-registration of documents required to be so registered u/s 17. This provision makes it crystal clear that such a document, if un-registered one, does not confer any power or create any right or relationship between the parties. Accepting no relationship between the parties and sending the litigation to revert back to civil court for adjudication afresh would cause much hardship to the old-widow landlady. 9. Therefore, in view of what has been set forth above, I am of the considered opinion that the status of Mr. Jagdish Singh Satwal is nowhere and he is liable to be thrown away outrightly, but, considering the plight of immediate eviction, the Court grants him four months’ time to vacate the premises, in dispute, i.e. he shall vacate the premises latest by 25.8.2016. In case of failure, the landlady shall be at liberty to move the execution application and thereafter, the Executing Court shall ensure that the disputed property is handed over to the landlady even by sending the police force at the spot. 10. Subject to the above, the revision is dismissed at the admission stage itself.