“. It is accepted that, in the present case, the lease was not intended for production or agricultural purposes. The objective was to allow the tenant to set up structures in the countryside. Under these conditions, it could be considered a lease from one month to the next, unless a contract to the contrary existed. The question now is whether there is a treaty to the contrary in the present case. Mr. Setalvad relies very strongly on the fact that the rent paid here was an annual rent and argues that it is possible to infer from that fact that the agreement between those parties was certainly not to create a monthly lease. It is indisputable that the contrary contract, as provided for in section 106 of the Transfer of Ownership Act, does not have to be an explicit contract; It may be implied, but it should certainly be a valid treaty. If it is not a contract, the section is in force and regulates the duration of the lease. In several cases, it has probably been recognized that the way in which rent is expressed as due establishes the presumption that the rental agreement is equivalent. Therefore, if the reserved rent is an annual rent, one could assume that the lease was an annual lease, unless there is something that refutes the presumption.
However, the difficulty of applying this rule to the present case arises from the fact that a year-to-year lease or the reservation of annual rent can only be made by a registered instrument, as provided for in section 107 of the Transfer of Ownership Act (empty Debendra Nath v. Syama Prosanna). The Kabuliyat in the case presented to us is undoubtedly a registered instrument, but ex concessis is not at all an operational document and therefore cannot meet the requirements of Article 107 of the Law on transfer of ownership. . . .