JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs :

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction:-

(i) quash the impugned order dated 10.02.2023 (Annex.-5) passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Banswara in Original Rent Application No.01/2022; and

(ii) the application dated 25.11.2022 filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs in toto & the document rent note dated 22.05.1992 tendered in evidence by the respondent may be declared as inadmissible in evidence & same be ordered to be kept in part-D; and

(iii) any other appropriate relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case be granted in favour of the petitioner; and

(iv) Cost of the writ petition kindly ordered to be awarded to the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the respondent filed an eviction case under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 before the learned Rent Tribunal, Baswara against the petitioner, reply whereto was filed by the petitioner.

2.1. The said eviction case was posted for evidence of the respondent, whereupon, the petitioner raised an objection regarding the admissibility of the rent note dated 22.05.1992 and the petitioner filed an application under Sections 17 & 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1908’) before the learned Rent Tribunal, stating therein that the rent note as produced by the respondent, for a period of 5 years and the same was not registered; therefore, the same cannot be allowed to be marked as exhibit.

2.2. The learned Rent Tribunal vide order dated 10.02.2023, dismissed the said application.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a lease of immovable property from year to year or any term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent, can be made only by a registered instrument. In the present case, the rent note was for a period of 5 years and therefore it cannot marked as exhibit to be admissible in evidence.

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that as per Sections 17 & 49 of the Act of 1908, the lease registration is compulsory, and thus, in absence of registration, as in the present case, the lease deed/rent note, as relied by the respondent, was not at all admissible.

3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the learned Rent Tribunal has erred in observing that the petitioner has admitted about the existence and conditions of the said rent note, because the petitioner has neither admitted the existence of said rent note nor admitted any of its conditions, and therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Tribunal is not justified in law.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the rent note was executed between the petitioner and respondent on 22.05.1992, and thus, there was no requirement of registration thereof, and thus, the impugned order cannot be said to be erroneous.

4.1. It was further submitted that the petitioner himself admitted in his written statement regarding the said rent note and no objection was taken therein. It was also submitted that Section 17 of the Act of 1908 debars a document to be read as evidence when it is not registered, but Section 49 of the Act of 1908 permits that the said document to be read as evidence for collateral purposes.

4.2. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shibani Basu Vs. Sandip Ray (Civil Appeal No. 10053 of 2010, decided on 26.11.2010) and; the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur B