The judgment established the requirement for registration of documents affecting immovable property and discussed the admissibility of unregistered documents for collateral purposes.

1. The petitioner, who is the landlord, has filed R.C.O.P.No.4 of 2000 for evicting the tenant/respondent from the petition premises on the ground of own occupation and demolition and reconstruction.

2. The petitioner claimed that the land and building described in the schedule to the petition was let to the father of the respondent for running a hotel business. After the death of the respondent's father, the respondent was carrying on the hotel business. The annual rent is Rs.5400/-. The lease agreement entered into by the respondent’s father expired on 31.12.1997. The respondent did not pay any annual rent from the years 1998, 1999 and 2000 amounting to Rs.16,200/-. The respondent denied the title of the petitioner in respect of the superstructure. The petitioner requires the petition premises to demolish immediately and reconstruct the same. The petitioner has sufficient means to demolish and to reconstruct the new building. The petitioner was given a necessary undertaking as per the Act.

3. The respondent denied the title of the petitioner in respect of the superstructure. According to the respondent, his father took only the land in the petition premises for rent and he put up the superstructure to run the hotel business. The respondent filed O.S.No.205 of 1998 for the relief under City Tenants Protection Act. There is no arrears of rent. The building is not in a dilapidated condition necessitating demolition.

4. On the pleadings, the petitioner examined his employee as P.W.1 and marked exhibits A1 to A27. The respondent examined himself as R.W.1 and marked exhibits B1 to B3.

5. The learned Rent Controller considering the pleadings and arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, dismissed the R.C.O.P.No.4 of 2000. The petitioner filed R.C.A.No.12 of 2003 on the file of the Subordinate Judge (Appellate Authority), Periyakulam, who by the order, dated 16.03.2006 dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller.

6. Aggrieved by the orders of both the courts below, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority failed to consider the exhibits filed and relied on by the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the rent receipts marked as Exs.A1 to A26 clearly show that lease is for both the land and building and the respondent paid rent for both land and building. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that both the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority rejected Ex.A27 lease deed is contrary to law and well settled judicial pronouncements. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even though Ex.A27 must be compulsorily registered, an unregistered lease deed can be marked and relied on for collateral purpose. The learned counsel referred the order dated 08.07.2002 made in I.A.No.10 of 2001 in R.C.O.P.No.4 of 2000. By the said order, the learned Rent Controller held that the nature of petition property is only collateral issue and allowed marking of unregistered lease deed and permitted the petitioner to rely on the said document. The said unregistered lease deed marked as Ex.A27. But in the final order passed in R.C.O.P.No.4 of 2000 the very same Rent Controller, rejected the Ex.A27 on the ground that the same was not registered in compliance of the provisions of the Registration Act and there is no difference in the dates mentioned in Ex.A27. The rejection of Ex.A27 is contrary to law. The Appellate Authority also on erroneous consideration of the pleadings and law, rejected Ex.A27. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that both the Courts below ought to have held that Ex.A27 could be relied on for collateral purpose and ought to have allowed the claim of the petitioner and ordered eviction of re