As per the case facts, a tenancy agreement for immovable property was executed for a period of five years with a renewal provision, but the agreement was unregistered. After the ... initial five years, the landlady sought rent enhancement and later served a notice to vacate, treating the tenant as a monthly tenant due to alleged default and her need for the premises. The tenant argued the suit was not maintainable because the lease was unregistered and that the property was for manufacturing, requiring a longer notice period. The Trial Court found the tenancy to be month-to-month and that the property was not for manufacturing, ruling in favor of the landlady. The High Court upheld this decision, stating that an unregistered agreement could not be used to determine rights and liabilities, and the tenant failed to prove the manufacturing purpose. The tenant appealed to the Supreme Court. The question arose as to what extent a court can consider the purpose of a lease from an unregistered deed for immovable property with a specified duration. Finally, the Supreme Court held that while an unregistered lease deed cannot be used as evidence to establish a lease by virtue of the instrument itself, a lease can still be created by implication or oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession. The Court emphasized that the mere existence of an unregistered instrument does not prevent a court from determining if a lease exists otherwise. The Court reiterated that for leases exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent, registration is compulsory, and unregistered documents generally cannot affect immovable property or be received as evidence of transactions affecting such property, except for collateral transactions or specific performance suits.