1. The first contention raised in this appeal is that the oral surrender is invalid because the original tenancy was created by a registered lease. But it is found that the tenant gave up his leasehold right and that it was accepted and acted upon by the landlord. The tenant has raised no objection. In the circumstances, we do not think that the surrender was invalid.
2. The next contention is that the tenancy was a yearly tenancy because a yearly rent was paid and that therefore the defendant was entitled to six months' notice to quit.
3. But the fact of an annual rent being reserved, though it may raise a presumption, is not conclusive to show that it was a yearly tenancy and, secondly, the lease having come into existence after the Transfer of Property Act, there could not be a tenancy reserving a yearly rent having regard to the provisions of S. 107 without a registered instrument.
4. The lease was not for agricultural or manufacturing purposes. It must therefore be deemed to be a tenancy from month to month. Notice to quit given in the case, therefore was sufficient.
5. The appeal must accordingly be dismissed with costs.
V.B/R.K
6. Appeal dismissed.