1. This order shall also govern the disposal of W.P. No.13515/2010 as in both the petitions question involved is one and the same and also in both the suits the respondent is one and the same.

2. In W.P. No.7670/2011 the order under challenge is dated 14/09/2011 passed by V Civil Judge, Class-II, Ratlam in civil suit No.61-A/2009 whereby the objection raised by the petitioner regarding admissibility of the document in evidence was rejected while in W.P. No.13515/2010 the order under challenge is dated 17/09/2010 passed by IV Civil Judge, Class-II, Ratlam in civil suit No.86-A/2009 whereby objection regarding admissibility of the document was rejected.

3. Short facts of the case are that Shivshanker respondent filed a suit for eviction in W.P. No.7670/2011 under Section 12 (1) (a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act on 17/01/2002 alleging that petitioner is the tenant in the suit accommodation vide rent note dated 28/02/1995 @ Rs.500/- per month and also deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- as deposit. It was alleged that since the rent is not being paid and petitioner is in arrears of rent, therefore, a decree of eviction be passed. Shivshanker also filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner in W.P. No.13515/2010 alleging that petitioner is tenant in the suit shop on rent vide rent note dated 14/02/1991 @ Rs.600/- per month. It was alleged that rent note was executed on 17/06/1994 and thereafter on 27/09/1997 and rent was enhanced from time to time. It was alleged that since arrears has not paid inspite of demand, therefore, decree of eviction be passed. Both the suits were contested by the petitioner on various ground. At the stage of evidence objection was raised by the petitioner about the admissibility of the rent note in evidence as the document was not registered and also not properly stamped. The objections were rejected by the learned Court below, hence these petitions.

4. Mr. SC Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set-aside. It is submitted that since the rent note was for a period of more than one year, therefore, it requires to be registered. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case learned Court below committed error in rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner. Reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Karam Singh (Sardar) Vs. Madanlal 1969 JLJ SN 143 wherein this Court held that in a case where rent note create three years lease, its terms could not be proved at all if un-registered. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Sunil Kumar Roy Vs. M/s Bhowra Kankanee Collories Ltd. 1971 JLJ SN 22 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that document changing essential terms of a registered lease, registration is compulsory. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Kapoor Chand Jain Vs. Choudhari Prasanna Kumar 1994 (II) M.P.W.N. 155 wherein this Court held that lease deed cannot be looked even for collateral purposes. Reliance is also placed on a decision in the matter of Santosh Jayaswal Vs. State of M.P. 1996 JLJ 152 = AIR 1996 SC 207 wherein in a case of right to catch fish in tank and lease for a period more than one year Hon’ble Apex Court held that document requires to be engrossed with required stamp duty and registered under section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act. Reliance is also placed on a decision in the matter of Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra 2009 (2) SCCD 819 (SC) wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that section 35 of the Indian Stamps Act prohibits admissibility of such document for any purpose whatsoever, hence no reason how document would be admissible for collateral purpose. On the strength of aforesaid position of law, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Court below be set-as