Gokul Prasad, J.
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment ana recovery of Rs. 6-12 arrears of rent. The defence taken was that the defendant took a lease of the land from the Municipal Board on the 24th November 1898, and had built a pucca house on the land leased worth about Rs. 2,000 and had been in possession for 22 years. It was further contended that the notice given was one not in accordance with law. The tacts of the case are briefly as follows: The land originally belonged to Government. It was banded over to the Municipal Board later on and the Municipal Board leased the disputed land to the defendant. The Board then transferred the ownership to the plaintiff, the Malony Club, and the defendant was informed of this fact and continued paying rent to the Club. The so-called lease was for a period of thirty years at Rs. 4-8 a year, determinable on the failure of the defendant to pay rent or to give it up to the Municipality when required to do so. The plaintiff came into Court on the allegation that the tenancy was a monthly tenancy ending with the end of a month of the English calendar; that the defendant was a bad paymaster, and the plaintiff Club had given him a notice terminating with the end of a month of the tenancy and the plaintiff wanted to dispossess him. The defendant pleaded in reply that the term o his lease had not expired and he had built a house worth Rs. 2,000 and was not liable to ejectment.
2. The First Court came to the conclusion that the so-called lease did not require registration and was admissible in evidence and that, in any event, it amounted to a license coupled with a grant and was as such irrevocable. It dismissed the suit.
3. The plaintiff went up in appeal and the learned Subordinate Judge has come to the conclusion that the document was an agreement, pure and simple, and was as such admissible in evidence. He further Came to the conclusion that rent had not been paid and under the terms of the lease the defendant was liable to ejectment. He allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the First Court, and decreed the plaintiff's claim with costs. The defendant comes here in second appeal. Various points have been urged before me at great length, namely, that the document did not require registration and that if it was inadmissible for want of registration it amounted to a license coupled with a grant. The decision of this case has given me anxious consideration. In my opinion, however, it is not necessary to discuss those points at length for the purpose of this appeal. On the very words of the agreement, dated the 24th of November 18(sic)8, the suit was bound to succeed. This document which pur posts to be one for thirty years and reserves an yearly rent of Rs. 4 8 says that the defendant will vacate the land in case he tails to pay the rent reserved or whenever the Board, the lessor, requires him to do so. It is clear from this condition that the lease could not be said to be for a term exceeding one year as the Board could on the very day succeeding the grant of the lease ask him to vacate the land. The lease, therefore, did not require registration. Having regard to the express terms of the lease the defendant had no right to remain in possession for thirty years. It may be a hard case for the defendant but he is himself to blame by acting on such a lease and erecting a costly building on the land. He was liable to ejectment at the will of the Municipal Board and the plaintiff, its successor, has the same tight. I, therefore, dismiss this appeal with costs.