JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - This appeal is directed against judgment & decree dated 14.07.2020 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Chittorgarh, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff, for eviction and arrears of rent has been decreed. 2. The suit was filed on 10.07.2012 by the plaintiff, inter alia, with the averments that the suit shop situated at Jhalar Bawari, NTC Market, Tehsil Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh was let out to the defendant No.1 on 26.09.1991 for rent @ Rs.725/- per month for a period of 5 years on the terms agreed between the parties. The agreement was signed by plaintiff, defendant No.1 and defendant No.3 give surety that in case defendant No.1 fails to comply with the terms of the agreement, he would get the shop vacated. It was claimed that the shop was required by the plaintiff's son Harsh Chhabra for his business. The defendant No.1 default in payment of rent and despite several reminders, the rent has not been paid and, therefore, in a response dated 29.09.2000, which was given by counsel of the defendants, it was accepted that rent has not been paid since February, 1998 when demand was made, the defendant No.1 behaving as if the said shop was owned by him and, therefore, he has lost his status of a tenant. It was claimed that rent for 170 months amount of Rs.2,34,200/- was due. 3. Allegations were made that on 24.04.1997, defendant-Chetan Prakash and his wife claimed themselves to be the owner of the shop in question and produced a forged document with the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, regarding which, on 18.12.2000, the defendant-Chetan Prakash was convicted by the competent criminal court for offence under Sections 467 and 471 IPC. 4. Notice dated 29.08.2000 was given , another notice dated 27.06.2005 was given and one more notice dated 22.09.2009 was given and the final notice dated 02.04.2012 was given terminating the tenancy and for vacating the premises. It was claimed in the plaint that, though not required, the tenancy has been terminated by issuing notices under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ('the TP Act'). Ultimately, it was prayed that the defendant be evicted from the shop in question and the decree be granted for arrears and for mesne profit @ Rs.3,000/- per month. Defendant No.3 filed written statement claiming misjoinder of parties. 5. Ultimately, it was prayed that the defendant be evicted from the shop in question and the decree be granted for arrears and for mesne profit @ Rs.3,000/- per month. Defendant No.3 filed written statement claiming misjoinder of parties. 5. Defendant No. 1 and 2 filed the written statement contesting the admissibility of the rent-note as the same was deficiently stamped and was unregistered. The requirement claimed by the plaintiff for his son was denied. It was indicated that the rent was sent through money-order, which was refused by the plaintiff. The defendant has never refused to pay the rent. The plaintiff himself has stopped taking the rent. The calculation of rent was also denied. 6. Further submissions were made that the suit was barred by limitation as the period of 5 years indicated in the agreement expired on 27.09.1996 and after passage of 12 years, the suit could not be filed, the same was barred under Article 65 and 67 of the Limitation Act, 1963 ('the Limitation Act') and that notice dated 09.04.2012 under Section 106 of the TP Act was illegal and void. 7. Replication was filed disputing the averments made in the written statement. 8. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed ten issues. On behalf of the plaintiff, three witnesses were examined and 33 documents were exhibited and on behalf of the defendants, two witnesses were examined and one document was produced. 9. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the defendant No.3 gave surety of deposit of rent upto September, 2001 and after adjusting the amount, the plaintiff was entitled to recover the rent for a period of three years from before the filing of the suit, the defendant was in arrears of rent. The bonafide necessity was found in favour of the plaintiff, however, it was indicated that comparative hardship has not been proved. The issue pertaining to misjoinder was held against the defendant. The bonafide necessity was found in favour of the plaintiff, however, it was indicated that comparative hardship has not been proved. The issue pertaining to misjoinder was held against the defendant. On issue No.8 pertaining to limitation, the trial court observed that the suit must not be dismissed for procedural errors as the agreement was for five years, it was the duty of the defendant to hand over vacant possession, notice under Section 106 of the TP Act was given, the Rent Control Act, 2001 was applied in the year 2003, however, the same was not applicable to the area, where the suit property is situated. There was no limitation for notice under Section 106 of the TP Act and that the defendant failed to prove that under Article 65 and 67 of the Limitation Act, the suit was barred by limitation and, consequently, held against the defendants. It was held that the agreement was admissible in evidence and decreed the suit for eviction for arrears of rent for a period from 09.07.2009 to 10.07.2012 and for mesne profit from 10.07.2012 onwards. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset made submissions that he was confining his arguments to the issue of limitation and with vehemence made submissions that the suit was barred by limitation. 11. Submissions were made that the suit in question, would be governed by Article 67 of the Limitation Act, which provides that for a suit by a landlord to recover possession from a tenant, the period of limitation is 12 years and the time for the same begins to run when the tenancy is determined. It was submitted that a bare look at the rent-note (Exhibit-28) clearly stipulates that the suit property was let out for a period of five years w.e.f. 26.09.1991 for a fixed period of five years, which period expired/tenancy determined on 27.09.1996, which aspect has been reiterated in the plaint, admitted by PW-1-A.C. Chhabra, plaintiff himself. It was submitted that a bare look at the rent-note (Exhibit-28) clearly stipulates that the suit property was let out for a period of five years w.e.f. 26.09.1991 for a fixed period of five years, which period expired/tenancy determined on 27.09.1996, which aspect has been reiterated in the plaint, admitted by PW-1-A.C. Chhabra, plaintiff himself. The said aspect was also reflected from the notice dated 29.08.2000 (Exhibit-5), wherein also it was indicated that the tenancy of the appellant stood determined on the mid-night of 28.09.1996 and that the status of the appellant had become that of a trespasser (tenant at sufferance) and as such the suit was required to be filed on or before 27.09.2008 and as admittedly the same has been filed beyond the period of limitation, the suit was liable to be dismissed. 12. Further submissions were made that the payment of rent through money-order by the appellant till the month of January, 1998, would not renew the tenancy as despite the receipt of the rent till January, 1998, the plea was raised that the tenancy was stood determined on 27.09.1996 and, therefore, the plea raised in this regard is of no consequence. 13. Further submissions were made that once the tenancy was for the fixed period, the same stood determined automatically under provisions of Section 111(a) of the TP Act and from the said date admittedly the suit was barred by limitation. It was emphasized that in a case where the tenancy is for a fixed period, the same doesn't require termination by issuing of notice under Section 106 of the TP Act and as such the issuance of notice under the TP Act by itself would not provide a fresh cause of action. 14. Feeble submissions were made claiming adverse possession over the shop in question and indicating that the suit was barred under Article 65 of the Limitation Act as well. It was prayed that as the suit is ex-facie barred by limitation, the appeal be allowed and the judgment & decree passed by the trial court be set aside. Reliance was placed on Firm Sardari Lal Vishwa Nath & Ors. v. Pritam Singh, (1978) AIR SC 1518. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that the entire plea sought to be raised is wholly baseless, against the law and record of the case. Reliance was placed on Firm Sardari Lal Vishwa Nath & Ors. v. Pritam Singh, (1978) AIR SC 1518. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that the entire plea sought to be raised is wholly baseless, against the law and record of the case. It was submitted that the suit is well within the period of limitation prescribed under Article 67 of the Limitation Act, inasmuch as, first notice under Section 106 of the TP Act was issued on 29.08.2000 terminating/ determining the tenancy of the appellant and the suit was filed on 10.07.2012, which is within limitation of 12 years as prescribed and, therefore, various contentions sought to be made have no substance. 16. Reference was made to contents of Exhibit-9, which is reply dated 29.09.2000 to the notice dated 29.08.2000 and its para-14, 17 and para-3 of the special facts to indicate that the tenancy did not come to an end w.e.f. the expiry of period of five years in the year 1996 and that the same continued and was terminated by issuing notice under Section 106 of the TP Act on 29.08.2000. 17. Further submissions were made that the appellant himself filed a suit for injunction (Exhibit-29) as late as in the year 2005 and indicated that the rent of the shop was Rs.900/- per month and in temporary injunction application filed alongwith the suit (Exhibit-33), again reiterated that presently the rent was Rs.900/- per month. It was submitted that the defendant, cannot be permitted to take the plea contrary to his own conduct, wherein he has continued to pay the rent till the year 1998 and, therefore, his status would be that a tenant holding over and as such the tenancy was required to be terminated by issuing notice under Section 106 of the TP Act, which was issued on 29.08.2000 terminating the tenancy and, therefore, view from any angle, the suit is within limitation. 18. Lastly, it was submitted that the terms of the lease deed cannot be looked into for claiming the same as fixed period tenancy in view of provisions of Section 107 of the TP Act. It was prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 19. Reliance was placed on Syed Abdul Latif v. Kundo Mal & Ors., (1972) AIR Raj. 284. 20. Lastly, it was submitted that the terms of the lease deed cannot be looked into for claiming the same as fixed period tenancy in view of provisions of Section 107 of the TP Act. It was prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 19. Reliance was placed on Syed Abdul Latif v. Kundo Mal & Ors., (1972) AIR Raj. 284. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant, again made submissions that the plaintiff cannot seek to take advantage of the plea of deposit of rent, inasmuch as, the judgment in the case of Firm Sardari Lal (supra), takes care of such a situation as well and, therefore, the appeal be allowed. 21. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record alongwith record of the trial court. 22. The only issue for determination which arises in the present appeal is as to whether the suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff is within limitation as prescribed by Article 67 of the Limitation Act. 23. So far as the feeble submissions made based on Article 65 of the Limitation Act seeking to assert the defendant having acquired interest in the suit property on account of adverse possession and the suit, therefore, being liable to dismissed is concerned, neither any pleadings in this regard have been made in the written statement nor any evidence has been led to substantiate such a claim and, therefore, the plea raised based on Article 65 of the Limitation Act, has no substance. Article 67 of the Limitation Act reads as under:- ................................................................................................ Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run ................................................................................................. 67. By a landlord to recover possession from a tenant. Twelve years. When the tenancy is determined. 25. A perusal of the above Article reveals that the period of limitation for a suit by landlord to recover possession from a tenant is 12 years and the time from which the period of 12 years begins to run is when the tenancy is determined. Therefore, the core issue in the present case is to decide as to when the tenancy in the present case stood determined. 26. Therefore, the core issue in the present case is to decide as to when the tenancy in the present case stood determined. 26. It is an admitted case between the parties that vide an agreement dated 26.09.1991 (Exhibit-28) entered into between the plaintiff-A.C. Chhabra and defendant-Chetan Prakash Jain, the suit shop was let out to the defendant, inter alia, containing the following terms:- 27. A perusal of the above terms, reveal that the suit shop, was let out by the landlord to the tenant for rent @ Rs.725/- per month for a period of 5 years and it inter alia also indicated that if before the end of 5 years, the tenant hands over vacant possession, the amount of security would be returned back and it was again reiterated that the agreement was for a period of 5 years, whereafter the shop would be handed over to the landlord. 28. Provisions of Section 107 of the TP Act, provides as to how the lease needs to be made, the same reads as under:- "107. Leases how made. A lease of immoveable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent, can be made only by a registered instrument. All other leases of immoveable property may be made either by a registered instrument or by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession. Where a lease of immoveable property is made by a registered instrument, such instrument or, where there are more instruments than one, each such instrument shall be executed by both the lessor and the lessee: Provided that the State Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that leases of immoveable property, other than leases from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent, or any class of such leases, may be made by unregistered instrument or by oral agreement without delivery of possession." (emphasis supplied) 29. A perusal of the above provision indicates that if the lease of immovable property is for any term exceeding one year, the same can be made only by a registered instrument. The provision further stipulates that where a lease of immovable property is made by a registered instrument, such instrument shall be executed by both the lessor and lessee. 30. A perusal of the above provision indicates that if the lease of immovable property is for any term exceeding one year, the same can be made only by a registered instrument. The provision further stipulates that where a lease of immovable property is made by a registered instrument, such instrument shall be executed by both the lessor and lessee. 30. In the present case, the document in question whereby the shop has been let out is for 5 years i.e. for a term exceeding one year and it bears signatures of both the landlord and the tenant i.e. lessor and lessee, however, the same has not been registered. In view of the stipulation made in Section 107 of the TP Act, where a lease of immovable property for any term exceeding one year can be made only by a registered instrument, the above document, in view of provisions of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 ('the Registration Act'), could not be received as evidence of any transaction effecting such property subject to the proviso that an unregistered document effecting immovable property and required by the Registration Act or Transfer of Property Act to be registered, may be received as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. 31. It may be noticed at this stage that in the present case, when statements of plaintiff as PW-1 were being recorded on 30.04.2019, the defendant raised objection about admissibility of the document in question (Exhibit-28), however, the application was decided by the trial court with the following observations:- 32. Against the said order, the defendant filed SBCW No. 707/2019, which came to be decided by a coordinate Bench on 22.11.2019 based on the submissions that the issue raised was squarely covered by judgment in Hanuman Prasad v. Om Prakash Nagori : SBCW No. 11543/2017 decided on 10.10.2017. 33. In the case of Hanuman Prasad (supra), the Court had come to the conclusion that as the document in question did not bear the signatures of landlord/transferor, the same was nothing more than a rent-note and, therefore, the same could not be termed as a lease in view of provisions of 3rd Para of Section 107 of the TP Act and as such the agreement executed between the parties was on month to month basis. 34. 34. Though the trial court, ordered for marking the document as exhibit leaving it open to decide the aspect at a later stage at the time of final arguments and the said order, was upheld by this Court rejecting the writ petition by merely holding that the same was covered by judgment in the case of Hanuman Prasad (supra), the aspect of the nature of document and whether the terms contained therein could be looked into can always be decided by the Court even after the same has been received in evidence. 35. A perusal of the terms of the agreement (Exhibit-28) as noticed hereinbefore and stipulation under Section 107 of the TP Act that a lease of immovable property, inter alia, for any term exceeding one year could be made only by a registered instrument and as in the present case, the lease was for 5 years and the same was not registered, apparently the transaction as contained therein could not be received in evidence. 36. Further, even the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, cannot be used for proving the term of the lease exceeding one year and as has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Biswabani (P) Ltd. v. Santosh Kumar Dutta & Ors., (1980) 1 SCC 185 as under: "11. Even if it is assumed that the appellant was put in possession for the first time under a lease which turns out to be void, the appellant came into possession of the premises with the consent of the landlords and paid rent from month to month. As the lease was to be for a period of 5 years, for want of registration no operative lease came into existence. In almost identical circumstances in Ram Kumar Das v. Jagdish Chandra Deb Dhabal Deb, (1952) AIR SC 23 an inference of tenancy ws made and the duration of the tenancy in such circumstances was held to be from month to month." 37. In view of the above fact situation, it is apparent that as the document in question is a lease for period exceeding one year, the same in absence of registration, could only be treated as month to month tenancy. 38. In view of the above fact situation, it is apparent that as the document in question is a lease for period exceeding one year, the same in absence of registration, could only be treated as month to month tenancy. 38. As to how a month to month tenancy can be determined is provided under Section 111(h) of the TP Act, which provides that lease of immovable property determines on the expiration of a notice to determine the lease, or to quit, or of intention to quit, the property leased, duly given by one party to other and the requirements of the notice have been stipulated in Section 106 of the TP Act. 39. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Chand Makhan & Ors. v. Goverdhan Das Byas & Ors., (1984) 1 SCC 369 , inter alia, laid down as under:- "6....................................................................... ..........................................................................The unregistered draft lease agreement Ex. B-2 was clearly inadmissible in evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act, except for the collateral purpose of proving the nature and character of possession of the defendants. The documents Ex. B-2 was admissible under the proviso to Section 49 only for a collateral purpose of showing the nature and character of possession of the defendants. The proviso to Section 49 was however not applicable in the present case inasmuch as the terms of a lease are not a "collateral purpose" within its meaning. It follows that the unregistered draft lease agreement Ex. B-2 was inadmissible in evidence to prove the transaction of lease. It was also ineffectual to create a valid lease for a renewed term of nine years for want of registration as required under Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act." (emphasis supplied) 40. Further Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anthony v. K.C. ITTOOP & Sons & Ors., (2000) 6 SCC 394 , in a case where the lease deed was for a period of 5 years and monthly rent was fixed but the same was not registered, inter alia, laid down as under:- "15..................................................................... .......................................................................... A transfer of right in the building for enjoyment, of which the consideration of payment of monthly rent has been fixed, can reasonably be presumed. Since the lease could not fall within the first paragraph of Section 107 it could not have been for a period exceeding one year. .......................................................................... A transfer of right in the building for enjoyment, of which the consideration of payment of monthly rent has been fixed, can reasonably be presumed. Since the lease could not fall within the first paragraph of Section 107 it could not have been for a period exceeding one year. The further presumption is that the lease would fall within the ambit of residuary second paragraph of Section 107 of the TP Act. 16. Taking a different view would be contrary to the reality when parties clearly intended to create a lease though the document which they executed had not gone into the processes of registration. That lacuna had affected the validity of the document, but what had happened between the parties in respect of the property became a reality. Non-registration of the document had caused only two consequences. One is that no lease exceeding one year was created. Second is that the instrument became useless so far as creation of the lease is concerned. Nonetheless the presumption that a lease not exceeding one year stood created by conduct of parties remains un-rebutted." (emphasis supplied) 41. Therefore, in the present case, once the term of lease as indicated in Exhibit-28 cannot be looked into even for collateral purpose and the tenancy in absence of the document having been registered would be month to month, the same could only be determined by issuance of notice under Section 106 read with Section 111(h) of the TP Act and provisions of Section 111(a) of the TP Act, would have no application, which provides for determination of lease of an immovable property by afflux of time limited thereby, once the time limited thereby cannot be looked into for lack of registration and the tenancy is month to month only, the provision under Section 111(a) of the TP Act would have no application. 42. 42. Various submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant heavily relying on term of 5 years indicated in the Exhibit-28 and that the period of 5 years came to an end on 27.09.1996 and, therefore, by afflux of time under Section 111(a) of the TP Act, the lease stood determined which essentially is based on the fact that the lease in question is a valid lease i.e. in consonance with provisions of Section 107 of the TP Act, which as noticed hereinbefore fails, inasmuch as, the same required registration and having not been registered was merely a month to month tenancy. 43. The submissions made based on the indications made in the notice dated 29.08.2000 (Exhibit-5) on behalf of the plaintiff-landlord, repeatedly referring to the period of 5 years in the Exhibit-28 and asserting that the lease came to an end at the end of 5 year period and that ever since the defendant is tenant by sufferance, is required to be considered in context. 44. Insofar as the legal stand of the defendant and the factual position is concerned, the same is contained in reply dated 29.09.2000 (Exhibit-9) to the notice dated 29.08.2000 (Exhibit-5), which reads as under:- (emphasis supplied) 45. Further it is also an admitted position that the plaintiff, in his cross-examination indicated as under:- (emphasis supplied) 46. In the cross-examination, the plaintiff indicated that on 27.09.1996, he had terminated the tenancy and thereafter also the tenant continued to pay the rent and also accepted that the rent was sent till January, 1998. As observed hereinbefore, the entire stand taken by the plaintiff has to be examined in the context, inasmuch as, the stand of the tenancy coming to an end in the year 1996 and the appellant becoming tenant at sufferance, is essentially an assertion on a point of law, which as determined hereinbefore is found to be incorrect, inasmuch as, the document (Exhibit-28) in absence of registration could not create tenancy for a term beyond one year and is only a month to month tenancy. 47. However, insofar as the stand taken by the defendant is concerned, the same apparently is factual wherein he has sent rent for the period upto January, 1998 by money order and the same has been accepted by the plaintiff-landlord and as such on the aspect of payment of rent till January, 1998, the fact cannot be denied. 48. 47. However, insofar as the stand taken by the defendant is concerned, the same apparently is factual wherein he has sent rent for the period upto January, 1998 by money order and the same has been accepted by the plaintiff-landlord and as such on the aspect of payment of rent till January, 1998, the fact cannot be denied. 48. Besides the above, insofar as the defendant is concerned, though it is open for him to take contradictory pleas, however, his own stand in the suit filed by him Exhibit-29 seeking injunction regarding his status as tenant indicating that presently rent is Rs.900/- and as the said suit was filed in the year 2005, on that count also, the filing of the suit from defendant's stand point also, would be within limitation. 49. Strong reliance has been placed by the counsel for the appellants-defendants on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Firm Sardari Lal (supra), wherein, it has been laid down as under:- "18. Having examined the matter on authority and precedent it must be frankly confessed that no other conclusion is possible on the first principle. Lease of urban immovable property represents a contract between the lessor and the lessee. If the contract is to be put to an end it has to be terminated by a notice to quit as envisaged under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. But it is equally clear as provided by S. 111 of the Transfer of Property Act that the lease of immovable property determines by various modes therein described. Now, if the lease of immovable property determines in any one of the modes prescribed under S. 111, the contract of lease comes to an end, and the landlord can exercise his right of re-entry. This right of reentry is further restricted and fettered by the provisions of the Rent Restriction Act. Nonetheless the contract of lease has expired and the tenant lessee continues in possession under the protective wing of the Rent Restriction Act until the lessee loses protection. But there is no question of terminating the contract because the contract comes to an end once the lease determines in any one of the modes prescribed under S. 111. Nonetheless the contract of lease has expired and the tenant lessee continues in possession under the protective wing of the Rent Restriction Act until the lessee loses protection. But there is no question of terminating the contract because the contract comes to an end once the lease determines in any one of the modes prescribed under S. 111. There is, therefore, no question of giving a notice to quit to such a lessee who continued in possession after the determination of the lease, i.e. after the contract came to an end under the protection of the Rent Restriction Act. If the contract once came to an end there was no question of terminating the contract over again by a fresh notice. Therefore, both on principle and authority the contention of Mr. Mahajan cannot be accepted." 50. The said judgment was cited by counsel for the appellant on the assumption that the tenancy in question stood determined by afflux of time under Section 111(a) of the TP Act, however, as the said contention stands negated hereinbefore on account of the fact that the tenancy in question cannot be accepted for a fixed term of 5 years on account of lack of registration, the same would not stood determined by afflux of time and the same being month to month tenancy required determination by notice under Section 106 of the TP Act, which was issued for the first time on 29.08.2000 (Exhibit-5). As such the law laid down in the case of Firm Sardari Lal (supra) would have no application to the facts of the present case. 51. In view of the above discussion, as it is found that the tenancy between the parties was month to month only and the same could only be terminated by issuance of notice under Section 106 of the TP Act, and as the first such notice was issued on 29.08.2000 (Exhibit-5) and the suit has been filed on 10.07.2012, which is within 12 years from the date of determination of tenancy, therefore, it can safely be said that the suit filed by the plaintiff is within limitation as prescribed under Article 67 of the Limitation Act and the submissions to the contrary, have no substance. 52. Consequently, there is no substance in the appeal filed by the appellants-defendants, the same is, therefore, dismissed with costs.