An unregistered rent-note is inadmissible in evidence to ascertain the purpose for which the premises had been let out if it is compulsorily registrable under section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908 and the proviso to section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 does not apply.

J.M.Tandon, J.

1. The property bearing number B. IV 232, Kucha Malerimal, Ludhiana is owned by Jagdish Chander Jain respondent and is in occupation of Nand Kishore, petitioner as a statutory tenant. The respondent, on behalf of his father, had let out the premises to Amar Nath, father of the petitioner, in February, 1947, allegedly for business and residential purposes. Amar Nath died in 1957. On 15th September, 1973 the respondent filed an ejectment application against the petitioner on the grounds of non-payment of rent, personal necessity and the petitioner having impaired its value and utility.

2. The arrears of rent was tendered and accepted on the first date of hearing. The petitioner denied that the value and utility of the property had been impaired or that he was liable to be ejected on the ground of personal necessity on the part of the respondent as the property had been let out exclusively for commercial purpose.

3. The Rent Controller, vide order dated 2nd May, 1979, held that the petitioner had not impaired the value and utility of the property. The property had been let out for business and residential purposes and it could be got vacated for the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The respondent required the demised premises for his married son. The petition was accepted and the petitioner was directed to vacate the premises within 3 months. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 10th February 1983. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner has filed the present petition.

4. The main contest between the parties is about the use of the premises for which it was let out. In the rent note (mark `A) dated 7th February, 1947, executed by Amar Nath about the premises in dispute for the period 17th January, 1947 to 16th January, 1950 at the rate of Rs. 10/- per mensem, it is written that the same had been let out for business and residential purposes.

5. The respondent-landlordproduced AW. 3 Ayodhia Parkash who stated that he was a partner of Amar Nath, father of the petitioner from 1944 to 1951 and he used to visit the premises in dispute daily. He did not visit, the premises after the death of Amar Nath. Amar Nath had set up his factory on the ground floor of the premises in dispute and his residence was on the first floor. The respondent appeared as his own witness and stated that his father Jyoti Parshad had let out the premises in dispute to Amar Nath (father of the petitioner) in 1947 at Rs. 10/- per mensem. Amar Nath died on 7th December. 1957. In 1959 an application for ejectment of the petitioner was filed which was dismissed on the basis of compromise and the rent was increased from Rs. 10/- to Rs. 20/- per mensem. The premises in dispute consists of 3 rooms one above the other and its area is about 26 square yards. Amar Nath, as also the petitioner, used to reside in their joint house and also in the house in dispute. Amar Nath had set up hosiery machines. His father Jyoti Prashad died in 1967. He required the house for his married son Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar was married in 1970. At present Rajinder Kumar is residing with him, but he has separate mess. The relations between his wife and his daughter-in-law are strained. The relations between the two remain cordial for about 7 or 8 months after the marriage of Rajinder Kumar and thereafter their relations became strained. The accommodation with him consists of one room and two stores on the ground floor and two rooms on the first floor of the house which is in his occupation. His family consists of his wife, three sons and five daughters. His eldest son Rajinder Kumar is aged 33 years and his other sons are 27 and 25 respectively. Two of his daughters are married. The accommodation with him is insufficient for the requirement of his family.

6. Rajinder Kumar has also appeared as a witness. He stated that he is married and has 3 school-