Documents which do not create a present demise do not require to be registered under Section 17(d) of the Registration Act and are not inadmissible in evidence under Section 49 of the said Act.

ORDER :- The petitioner herein was the respondent-tenant in H.R.C. No.1584 of 1980 on the file of the 14th Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras. The above case was instituted by the landlady, daughter of one Henry Issidore, who is respondent in this revision, under Section 10(2)(v) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Act 18 of 1960) (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) on the ground of causing nuisance to the landlady as well as the lodgers of the adjacent lodge. The landlady has also filed two other cases in HRC Nos. 1585 and 1586 of 1980 against the same tenant for eviction on the ground of additional accommodation and on the ground of wilful default respectively. Besides these three cases, there are 9 other eviction petitions filed against the same tenant by the brother and mother of the respondent herein. All the eviction petitions are being tried together and common evidence is being led in HRC No.1584 of 1980. In the trial of these cases, the father of the respondent herein, viz, Henry Issidore is being examined as P.W.1 whose evidence is partly recorded. During the examination of P.W.1, three unregistered documents were sought to be filed on behalf of the eviction petitioners in all the cases. On behalf of the petitioner herein, who is the respondent-tenant in all the 12 cases, objection was raised as to the admissibility of these documents, both under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act and under the Indian Stamp Act, It is seen from the records that the learned Rent Controller stopped further examination of P.W.1, at that stage and adjourned the proceedings to the next day, i. e., 29-1-1981, on which date one Tajudin Ahmed working as Manager in Hotel Impala and Impala Sweets belonging to the tenant filed a petition in M.P. No.59 of 1981, supported by an affidavit submitting that the three unregistered documents sought to be filed cannot be admitted in evidence and requesting the Rent Controller to decide as a preliminary issue, the admissibility of these three unregistered documents relied on by the landlords. P.W.1 who is the father of the respondent herein filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the landlady countering the objections raised by the tenant and setting out various reasons for admitting these documents in evidence. Thereafter the tenant himself filed a reply affidavit repelling the contentions raised in the counter affidavit filed by Mr. Henry Issidore and reiterating the stand taken by the tenant that the three unregistered documents cannot at all be admitted in evidence. The learned Rent Controller, on perusing the affidavits and documents and hearing the arguments of the counsel representing both the parties, has passed his order dismissing the petition in M.P. No.59 of 1981, holding that the three documents sought to be filed do not create a present demise and, therefore, it is not necessary that these documents should be registered under Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, and alternatively holding that "even if we hold that the documents cannot be locked into for the reason that they are not registered, there is nothing which prevents from admitting in evidence for a collateral transaction….,…." Dissatisfied with the order of the Rent Controller, the tenant preferred an appeal in HRA No.206 of 1981, questioning the validity and legality of the order passed by the Rent Controller. It seems from the order of the appellate authority that a contention was raised on the strength of a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Central Bank of India v. Gokal Chand, AIR 1967 SC 799: (1967) 2 SCJ 828 : (1967) 1 SCR 310, that the order passed by the Rent Controller is only an interlocutory order which is merely procedural and which does not affect the rights and liabilities of the parties, and therefore, no appeal would lie against such an order and the only course left open to the parties is to set forth the error or defect, if any, in such an order in the