The other objection, which has been raised, is that the agreement dated 12.2.1986 required registration under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. The unregistered agreement would not be admissible in evidence, hence it could not be acted upon. Yet another objection, which has been raised, is that the suit was filed beyond the period of limitation. In support of the first contention, a reference has been made to Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, according to which the parties had to execute a registered lease deed but the same was never done. We find that the High Court has rightly dealt with the question while holding that the plaintiff had not filed the suit for enforcement of agreement of lease. It was a suit filed for damages for the breach of contract. It was not a suit for specific performance of the contract. A promise was definitely held out by the defendant to the appellant for occupying the premises for a period of three years at a given rate of rent. The premises were in fact constructed in accordance with the instructions and specifications of the defendant. For raising the construction, the plaintiff had raised loans from the bank. Everything happened in accordance with the terms of the contract except that he period of tenancy was interdicted before three years of taking over of the possession by the defendant. In our view, the Trial Court and the High Court have rightly held that in absence of any lease deed or a registered lease deed, the nature of the lease would only be that of a monthly lease but it does not mean that it would deprive the plaintiff or damages for breach of terms of an agreement in accordance of which he had performed his part of the obligation by creating a liability against himself by taking loan from bank and that it will be of no consequence as agreed in the agreement since no lease was executed and registered. The plinths were constructed in accordance with the design and specification given by the defendant. It may be of no use to any other person and for any other purpose. In this background as what was held out by the defendant, assumes importance and in case one, who holds out a promise, will have to compensate the party who acted bonafidely on the basis of the promise made. As indicated earlier, even the tender notice, besides other correspondence, all gave out that the defendant would occupy the premises for a period of three years, everything was acted upon according to the agreement except the execution of lease deed, hence there was termination of tenancy on 15 days’ notice. The plaintiff is not insisting that the defendant must retain possession for the remaining period or that the tenancy was not terminable but termination of the tenancy would not necessarily mean that the defendant would also not be liable for compensating for the breach of promise held out in the terms of the agreement. Submit