A unilateral rent note does not require registration.

ORDER :

Abhay Chaturvedi, J.

1. The present writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 31.07.2019 (Annexure-6) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Merta whereby, the application submitted by the petitioner under Sections 34, 35, 39(1) and 42 of The Rajasthan Stamp Act and Sections 107 and 108 of the Transfer of Property Act and Sections 17 & 39 of the Registration Act read with Order 13 Rule 3 CPC was dismissed.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a Civil Suit for arrears of rent, recovery of possession and mesne profit contending inter alia, that the plaintiff rented his shop to the defendant-petitioner on 01.05.2013 with rent of Rs. 1800/- per month. The defendant-petitioner after 30.06.2014 onwards did not pay the rent. The plaintiff served a registered notice for terminating the tenancy of the defendant but the tenant did not vacate the suit premises. Therefore, the suit was filed for eviction of the defendant and for recovery of the due rent amount.

3. The petitioner-defendant filed written statement and submitted that the shop was not taken on rent from the plaintiff-respondent but the same was taken on rent from the plaintiff's mother Smt. Badam Kanwar on 28.07.1992 and Rs. 30,000/- were paid to her as security deposit. It was also mentioned that the defendant had made all the payment of rent.

4. An application was submitted by the petitioner with the averment that the plaintiff has relied upon the lease deed dated 01.05.2013 which was executed on the stamp paper of Rs. 100/-. The lease deed contained the condition that there will be enhancement of 15% of rent after every three years and as such the shop was let out for a period of more than one year with condition to enhance 15% rent after every three year. Thus, the document comes under the definition of lease which requires compulsorily registration and the document which is not registered is not admissible in evidence. Hence, the prayer was made that since the lease deed in question is not properly stamped, therefore, the same may be sent to Collector (Stamps) for the purpose of impounding. The plaintiff-respondent did not choose to file reply to the application.

5. The trial Court after hearing the parties, dismissed the application vide order dated 31.07.2019 (Annexure-6). Hence, this writ petition is filed.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and pursed the material available on record.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant urged that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is contrary to the settled propositions of law, which is liable to be set aside. He further averred that the trial Court has not considered the important aspect of the matter that the document has to be read independently and the trial Court without considering the nature of the document (Annexure-5) came to the conclusion that registration is not required and without any basis held that the stamp duty affixed on the document is sufficient. As per the requirement of law, registration was necessary and without registration of the document, the same cannot be admissible in evidence. In support of his contentions learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Banwarilal Sharma Vs. Ram Swaroop reported in AIR 1974 Rajasthan 178 and Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra reported in 2009 DNJ (SC) 364.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner implored this Court to accept the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 31.07.2019 passed by the trial Court.

9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and pursued the material available on record.

10. A perusal of the rent note dated 01.05.2013 (Annexure-5) shows that it was executed by the petitioner Ramavatar in favour of landlord Rajendra Kumar, whereby the shop situated at Meera Marg, Merta was taken on rent @ 1800/- per month. It was also agreed that 15% of the rent shall be e