Leave and license agreement

It should be registered subject to term of the agreement and a registered document would create a legal valid presumption under the Indian Evidence Act and from the legal point of view, while a lease agreement is the safest for tenants, landlords prefer a leave-and-licence agreement. This is because a licence does not create any interest in the property for the licensee. The licensee merely gets the right to enter,occupy and use the premises. Technically, the right to occupy premises under a lease agreement is governed by the provisions of section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act,whereas the right to occupy licensed premises is governed by section 52 of the Indian Easement Act.

The Transfer of Property Act creates an interest in the property for the lessee for the duration of the lease. This enhances a lessee’s chances of holding on to the property even after the expiry of the lease term. On the other hand, the Indian Easement Act creates no titles or interest for the licensee. The licensee merely gets the right to enter and use the premises for a limited period without acquiring any interest in it for even the duration of the licence agreement

But Section 17(2) of REgisteration Act provides that -" other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees, and upwards, to or in immovable property; 

Since Licence provides a 'right' to the licensee which would not be unlawful otherwise, wouldn't leave and license be covered under this subsection thus making it a compulsorily registerable document?

Whatever Acts are every thing boils down to indian contract Act 1872 . why even Constitution of india itself is a massive contract like magna carta between people of india and parliamentary form of government.

So it is so between kings and people in monarchy in an unwritten contract . unwritten contract is a contract recognized that way very Magna Carta emerged;

Before Indian contract Act was slightly modified it also recognized oral contracts too.

that was there before written contracts emerged, principle behind is morality of understanding; in written agreements case too immoral man might deviate in many ways , by so called civil suits.. what guarantee a written document helps....yea it s like straw on the sea if a man catches when he is drowning into sea.

that is the value of all these Acts.

can u say when per Act you acted, so opponent cannot file a case against you! 

it is only some mental satisfaction; see parliament brought 100+ constitutional amendments indeed questionable but arbitrary powers of government forces you you bow that is all.

any arbitrary man might harm legally rightful.

that i do not say Acts are useless but some fetters that is all!