An unregistered rent-deed is inadmissible in evidence as it is compulsorily registerable under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act. However, the unregistered rent-deed can be received in evidence for any collateral transaction, not required to be effected by a registered instrument.

1. - This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment of a tenant and for recovery of arrears of rent, which has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

2. The plaintiffs' case is that their house situated in village Siriyari, District Pali was given on lease by them to the defendants on Chaitra Sudi 9, Samvat 2002, on a monthly rent of Rs. 2/- per month and that a tent deed was executed by the defendants on that vary day and possession of the house was also delivered to the defendants on the same day. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants did not make payment of any rent. The plaintiffs then gave a notice on May 3, 1966 to the defendants terminating their tenancy and demanding delivery of possession and payment of arrears of rent, but as the defendants did not make any payment even thereafter nor did they re-deliver possession of the house in dispute to the plaintiffs, a suit for recovery of Rs. 38/- as arrears of rent and Rs. 34/-as damages for use and occupation and for ejectment of the defendants from the suit premises was filed in the Court of Munsif, Sojat on December 19, 1967.

3. The defendant No. 3 contested the suit and denied the title of the plaintiffs as well as the fact of alleged tenancy. According to the contesting defendant, that so called rent note was inadmissible in evidence, as the same was compulsorily registerable, but was not registered. The defendant No. 3 asserted that he had purchased the house in dispute by a registered sale-deed dated September 24, 1961 from Magna son of Nanda, resident of Siryari, who was the uncle of the plaintiffs and was the owner of the house in dispute, for a sum of Rs. 500/-. Thus the defendant claimed to be in possession of the house in dispute as owner thereof. The other defendants did not appear inspite of service of notices upon them and proceedings were taken ex parte against them.

4. One of the issues framed in the suit was as to whether the rent-deed was inadmissible in evidence ? This issue No. 4 was tried as a preliminary issue and the trial Court held that a the rent-deed was for a period exceeding one year, it was required to be registered and as the same was unregistered, it was inadmissible in evidence. Having decided this issue against the plaintiff, the Civil Judge, Sojat, by his judgment dated October 8, 1969, dismissed the plaintiffs' suit in its entirety. An appeal was preferred by the plaintiff and the learned District Judge, Pali concurred with the findings arrived at by the trial Court in respect of issue No. 4 and it was held that the rent deed was inadmissible in evidence, being unregistered. The first appellate Court also rejected the contention advanced on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant that the document could be read into evidence for collateral purpose and that the same could be used for proving the tenancy. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed.

5. In this second appeal, it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants in the first instance that the document in question was admissible in evidence as it was a unilateral document and was for one year only. In the alternative, it was argued by the learned counsel that the document should have been allowed to be used to collateral purposes, namely for the purpose of proving the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the entire suit atleast for ejectment could not have been thrown out merely on the basis of the finding that the document was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, as the tenancy could be proved by leading oral evidence.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the document was for a period of 10 years and was compulsorily registerable and as such the two Courts below had rightly held that it was inadmissible in evidence. It was also argued that under Section 91 of the Evidence Act, oral evidence of the terms of the rent-note could not be allowed to be moved by the plaintiff and as such even the amount of rent alleged to h