BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.(227)No. gma 7/2010 3mg” BE§§E§§§ Pappu @ AT Farishta S/o Late Gulam Ali Farishta, aged about 45 years, R/o. Qua. No. Ground Floor - 4, C4; Ravinagar, Housing Colony, Behfnd * E.A.CT Coiony, Rafpur, Tahsil & Distict— Raipur (CG) L VERSUS ‘ PETITIONER DEFENDANT RESPONDENT PLAINTIFF T.S. Dewangan s/o. late Sakharam Dewangan, aged _ about: 70;, years, Architect, present, R/o. Near Chhattisgarh CoHege, Bairan Bazar, Raipur, Tahsil & District— Raipur (CG) ETlTlON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. t WRIT P HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinqle Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227) No.6410 of 2010 Petitioner Pappu @ A. Farishta versus Respondent T.S.Dewangan Present: Shri A.K.Prasad, counsel for the petitioner. Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India ORAL ORDER (Passed on 15'“ November, 2010) Heard on admission. 2. The respondent/plaintiff has preferred a suit for eviction against the petitioner/tenant. Admittediy, an agreement Annexure P-4 was executed between the parties, which is titled as rent note (Kirayanama). When this agreement was sought to be exhibited in course of examination—in-chief of the respondent/landiord, the petitioner raised an objection regarding the admissibiiity of the document on account of non-payment of adequate stamp duty at the time of execution of the agreement. The trial Court has rejected the objection after referring to the case laws relied by the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the most crucial aspect for determination about the requirement of payment of adequate stamp duty is whether the document stipulating certain r conditions has been signed by both the parties or not. He would El/lsubmit that the-document Annexure P-4 is apparently signed by both g7/ WTC: l. an 2 the parties, therefore, adequate stamp duty should have been paid on the document treating it as a lease, however, in the absence of such stamp duty having been paid,'the document is not admissible in evidence. 4. in Sitaram vs. Shankarlal, 1986 JLJ 224 a Single Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that when the leases of immovable property for year to year or any term exceeding one year and reservmg an yearly rent has been executed between the parties, its registration is compulsory and the same would be a lease if it is signed by both the parties. In this judgment, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has considered that the document titled as rent note was not signed by both the parties, however, it is also to be noted that the High Court had also observed that the lease of the immovable property should be for year to year or any term exceeding one year, which is not the case before this Court. 5. On a perusal of the document Annexure P-4, it is to be noted that the document is a rent note (Kirayanama). Though it is signed by both the parties yet the period for which the agreement is executed is not exceeding one year. Thus, it is not compulsorily registerable. Once it is not compulsorily registerable, the question about the admissibility for non—payment of adequate stamp duty, should not detain the trial Court from proceeding ahead in the suit as the document can be used for collateral purposes. 6. The trial Court has not committed any error of jurisdiction by rejecting the objection regarding admissibility. The instant writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. / // $¢w0 (7