Unregistered document is only used for collateral purpose.

1. Tenant in R.C.O.P. No.8 of 1993, on the file of Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Sankarankoil, is the revision petitioner herein, which is one under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Since caveat was entered by the landlord, even at the time when the revision came up for admission, I heard the entire matter.

3. Respondent herein filed a petition for eviction on the ground that the petitioner herein has committed wilful default in paying the rent, and also for various other reasons. Before initiating the eviction proceedings, a notice was issued asking the tenant to vacate the premises. In reply to that notice, revision petitioner sent a letter stating that he is in possession of the building not as a tenant, but on the basis of an agreement dated 3. 1990 entered into with the previous landlord. It is stated therein that he has advanced a sum of Rs.40,000, and in consideration of the said payment, he was allowed to occupy the building free of rent and in lieu of interest. It was his case that he is not liable to pay rent and his possession is that of a mortgagee. After receipt of the reply, revision petition was filed, alleging the grounds referred to in the earlier notice.

4. A counter was filed in terms of the reply notice.

5. Thereafter, the case was posted for trial. Evidence of the landlady was over in September, 1997. During the examination of the landlady, tenant did not put forward any contention on the basis of the socalled agreement dated 5. 1990. The document was also not filed. After the evidence of the landlady was over, tenant filed the document dated 3. 1990. When the tenant entered the box and spoke about his case, he sought the marking of the impugned document. The same was seriously opposed by the landlady on the ground that it is a new matter which cannot be taken into consideration after the evidence of the landlord is ever, and that apart, the document itself is unregistered and, therefore, is admissible in evidence. When the marking of the document was opposed, it was argued in reply that the tenant wanted to mark the document only for collateral purpose and, therefore, even if it is unregistered, the same could be relied on. The Rent Controller did not find favour with the argument of learned counsel for tenant and, therefore, refused to mark the document. That Order of the Rent Controller is challenged in the revision under Art. 297 of the Constitution.

6. After having heard the learned counsel on both sides, I do not think the Rent Controller has acted illecally, so as to warrant an interference under Ar. 227 of the Constitution.

7. It may be stated that this revision has been filed only to delay the trial of the rent control proceedings by the Rent Controller, which was initiated five years back. It was not stated even by the tenant that he was not aware of the document or that he was not in possession of the same. He did not think of producing the same at the time when the counter was filed, or at the time when P.W.1 was examined. Not even one questioned was put to P.W.1 when she was in the box. The long delay in producing the document shows the lack of good faith on the part of the petitioner.

8. Even on merits, I do not think that the Order of the Rent Controller is to be interfered with. The fact that the petitioner is in possession of the property is admitted. The case of the landlord is that his possession is that of a tenant. But the revision petitioner wants to disprove the same by relying on the document and to conclude that his possession is that of a mortgagee. Admittedly the document is not registered. It is a mortgage deed for Rs. 40,000, which is compulsorily registerable under Sec. 17 of the Indian Registration Act. The document which is compulsorily registerable cannot be admitted in evidence for any purpose under Sec.40 of the State Act. But there is a proviso to that Section which enables to look into the document for any collateral purpose