The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of unregistered rent documents for assessing provisional rent and the tenant's obligation to deposit the assessed rent to avoid eviction.

JUDGMENT

Nirmaljit Kaur, J. - Both the aforementioned revision petitions shall stand decided by this common order as the issue involved is identical.

2. Both the revision petitions are filed by the petitioner/tenant against the dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Authority, whereby, the order of eviction, on the ground of arrears of rent, passed by the Rent Controller, was upheld.

3. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that both the Courts below have ignored the provisions of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. As per provision of Section 49 of the Registration Act, the rent deed could have been read only in case it was a registered document. The rent deed being admittedly an unregistered document cannot be relied upon for quantifying the rate of rent as has been done by the Courts below. Reliance was placed on the judgments rendered by this Court in the cases of Satwant Kaur vs. Narinder Singh, (2011) 1 R.C.R. (Civil) 214 and Pardeep Behal vs. Kanwaljit Kaur and others, (2012) 3 R.C.R. (Civil) 50, to contend that any rent note for exceeding a year or increasing yearly rent requires registration under Section 17 (1) (d) of the Registration Act, 1908 and is not admissible in evidence and the landlord cannot claim enhanced rent on the basis of said document.

4. The argument deserves to be rejected in the facts of the present case being devoid of merit.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent/landlord has pointed out that this is the fourth round of litigation. The first, eviction petition filed by the landlord for non payment of rent had attained finality on 30.05.2015 after the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner/tenant against the order of eviction. In the second round of litigation, another rent petition had to be filed for non payment of rent for the subsequent period, which too attained finality on 27.01.2016, after the eviction order was passed against the petitioner/tenant. In the third round of litigation, the Appellate Authority, vide order dated 23.05.2017, once again assessed the provisional rent for the another subsequent period w.e.f. 01.04.2017 by adding 10% enhancement to Rs.16,838/- per month, when the said order was challenged before this Court in CR No.6403 of 2017. The same too was dismissed, vide order dated 12.12.2017. This is now the fourth round of litigation, where, another rent petition had to be filed under Section 13 of The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for ejectment of the petitioner from the shop in question once again for non payment of rent at the assessed rate and was held liable to pay rent for the period as under:-

6. The appeal against the said order was dismissed, vide order and judgment dated 19.11.2018.

7. There is no dispute with the judgments rendered by this Court and relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in the cases of Satwant Kaur and Pardeep Behal (supra). However, in the present case, the rent note was executed for a period of 11 months, which could always be read in evidence for a collateral purpose i.e. to find out the purpose of tenancy. It is not disputed and as also recorded by the Courts below that one of the stipulation in the rent note was that the rent would be increased every five years. Therefore, the said rent note could always be read for the purpose of assessment of a provisional rent. It is a well settled proposition of law as held by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Dalip Kaur Brar vs. M/s Guru Granth Sahib Sewa Mission (Regd.) and another, (2017) 1 R.C.R. (Rent) 447, that in case the tenant doe