( 1 ) IN the course of an eviction petition filed under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the act'), which was filed by the petitioner, against the respondent, lie sought to mark two documents in support of his claim that he had right to the properly, which he leased to the respondent; one of the documents was an alleged deed of usufructuary mortgage, under which the original owner had supposed to have mortgaged the premises in favour of the petitioner, with possession. The olher document is allegedly a lease deed for eleven months under which, respondent is staled to have taken the premises on lease from the petitioner, the mortgagee. Both these documents were neither registered, nor properly stamped; hence the trial court refused to receive them in evidence.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, earlier, the premises in question was mortgaged to the petitioner by way of deposit of title deeds, and it had been properly registered; thereafter as an additional security, the same was usufructuarily mortgaged; therefore, the deed did not require registration. For this purpose, the learned counsel relied on a de