The admissibility of documents and the acceptance of secondary evidence under the Indian Evidence Act were central legal principles established in the judgment.

K.Kannan, J.

1. The petitioner is ready and the counsel for the respondent seeks for time on the ground that he has misplaced the record. However, I have heard the counsel for the petitioner after declining the prayer for adjournment by the respondent.

2. The petition for eviction was filed on the grounds of non-payment of rent and two other grounds which are not relevant, since the other grounds were found against the landlord on the issue of nonpayment of rent for the period from 01.11.1974 to 31.07.1985, the Rent Controller found against the landlord and dismissed the petition. The decision was reversed in appeal by the Appellate Authority finding that the tenant had not paid the rent as directed at the first hearing. The so called payment making up the entire arrears as determined by the Court fell in the shape of a payment through a demand draft by the tenant to the landlord. According to the Appellate Court, no permission had been taken by the tenant to tender secondary evidence through a photocopy of a demand draft and therefore, the document was liable for rejection. The Appellate Authority therefore found fault with the reasoning of the Rent Controller and upheld the contention of the landlord that there had been non- payment of rent with reference to amount of about Rs. 2250/- covered under the so called demand draft and ordered eviction.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits on a point of law that the rent note on the basis of which the landlord claimed Rs. 100/- as the rent payable was not admissible being an unregistered document. On the issue regarding the non-payment of rent and which according to the counsel is mixed question of law and fact which depended on the consideration of the admissibility of the photocopy of the demand draft, the Appellate Authority had erroneously found that the tenant had not paid the entire rent as determined by the landlord.

4. As regards the first contention that the rent note was not admissible as evidence, I find no merit in the contention since the document purported to be for a period of less than 12 months. The interdict against the admissibility contemplated under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 17 read with section 49 of the Registration Act operates only in respect of lease for a period in excess of one year. The nomenclature in the document itself according the learned counsel is erroneous for the document spells out mutual rights and obligation signed by both the parties and attested by witness and hence it was considered only as a lease Deed. The nomenclature in the document notwithstanding, the main question is the fact that the period mentioned in the document is what governs the registrability or otherwise of the instrument. The retention of possession by a tenant beyond a period of one year does not itself make the document due for registration. The consideration of this issue need not deter us for long since the issue that falls for consideration is what was the rent payable by the tenant and whether there was any default in the payment.

5. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have considered the fact that all the rent receipts which had been produced showed a rent of Rs. 75/- as having been paid per month. It appears that there were proceedings by the Income Tax Department against the landlord and the rent payments by the tenant had also be attached. During all the relevant period, when the landlord claimed that there had been non-payment of rent by the tenant, the amounts had been remitting Rs. 75/- per month. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority determined the issue of non-payment of rent only by taking into account that the amount of rent was only Rs. 75/- per month. While the Rent Controller found that there had been no default in the payment of the tenant, the Appellate Authority found a cause for reversal on the ground that all the payments alleged to have been made by the