IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2011 / 1ST ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 16719 of 2011(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.ABOOBACKER, S/O. LATE MUHAMMED HAJI, AGED 50 YEARS, MERUKUNNU HOUSE, KOOTTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS PREVENTIVE UNIT, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 307. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS PREVENTIVE UNIT, A.K.ROAD, NEAR KENDRIYA VIDHYALAYA, UPHILL, MALAPPURAM-676 505. ADV. SHRI.JAMES KURIAN, CGC FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 16719 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 1.3.03 EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 31.7.08 EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 28.8.09 EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 3.4.10 EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 4.5.11 (True Copy) P.A. To Judge P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ....................... W.P.(C).16719/2011 ....................... Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT 1.Petitioner who is stated as the owner of the building in question had leased out the same to the respondents nearly eight years back, on the strength of Ext.P1 agreement specifying the terms and conditions in between. 2.The case of the petitioner is that despite many a demand, to have the rent revised, the same has not been considered by the respondents and they are continuing to occupy the premises unauthorizedly; which made the petitioner to approach this Court for directing the respondents by issuance of a writ of mandamus to consider Ext.P3, P4 and P5 representations preferred in this regard. 3.In view of the pleadings and prayers, this Court does not require any second thought to arrive at a finding that the remedy of the petitioner lies elsewhere. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the non payment of rent as demanded, the W.P.(C).16719/11 2 petitioner is at liberty to move the Rent Control Court seeking for fixation of fair Rent or for eviction, as the case may be, to the extent as permissible in law. Further, the entire case has been moulded placing reliance on Ext.P1 agreement, which originally was for a period of 'three years'; but just executed on a stamp paper worth Rs.50/-. Admittedly, the Agreement is not registered. A lease agreement prescribing annual rent or for a period exceeding one year are liable to be compulsorily registered as provided under Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act. The consequence of non-registration of a document, which otherwise is liable to be compulsorily registered, is dealt with under Section 49(c) of the very same enactment, providing that such a document is not acceptable in evidence before any Court of law, though contents of the said agreement could be sought to be proved by other means by adducing evidence. If the petitioner wants to rely on the terms of the Agreement, it is for the petitioner to have it proved by other means, before the appropriate forum, for the obvious reason that, the same as such is not acceptable in evidence, for the reason stated herein before. W.P.(C).16719/11 3 4.In the above circumstances, this Court finds that there is absolutely no merit in the writ petition. Interference is declined and it is dismissed accordingly, however, without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to pursue the matter before other appropriate forum. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge mrcs