THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3890 of 2010 Date: 06.12.2010 Between: K. Madhusudhan Rao … Petitioner And Smt. Sashi Rekha … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3890 of 2010 ORDER : Subject matter of this revision petition is rejection of rental agreement, dated 27.10.2004, by the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad, as not admissible in evidence for all purposes, including collateral purpose, to prove the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The said order, dated 21.7.2010, was passed by the Additional Rent Controller in I.A.No.106 of 2010 in R.C.No.151 of 2007. 2. Previously, the alleged tenant filed I.A.No.447 of 2009 in the lower Court and after hearing both the counsel, the lower Court passed order, dated 23.3.2010, dismissing the petition filed under Order XIII Rule 3 and Section 151 of C.P.C., to reject the same rental agreement, dated 27.10.2004, said to have been executed by the tenant. 3. Originally the disputed document, dated 27.10.2004, was improperly stamped and was not registered. Subsequently, the Rent Controller sent the disputed rental agreement to the District Collector (District Registrar, Hyderabad) for collection of deficit stamp duty and penalty after impounding the document, which was deficitly stamped. After collection of deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,100/- and penalty of Rs.3,300/-, totaling to Rs.4,400/-, the District Registrar, Hyderabad, sent back the impounded document to the Rent Controller informing the said fact and endorsing the same on the document. So, as the matter now stands, the disputed document is properly stamped as a rental agreement and it remained to be unregistered. 4. There are catena of reported decisions of this Court and that of the Apex Court with regard to admissibility of a properly stamped document, but unregistered. In A. Kishore @ Kantha Rao vs. G.Srinivasulu[1] a Division Bench of this Court held as follows: “Therefore, there is no judgment as such from the Apex Court, which in our view, lays down that an unregistered lease deed which is compulsorily registerable, cannot be admitted in evidence even for the purpose of proving the nature of possession. True, such lease deeds cannot be used for the purpose of providing the terms of such lease or the lease itself, but they can certainly be used for the purpose of proving the nature of possession.” 5. Such a document is admissible in evidence, subject to proof and relevancy, for limited collateral purpose of proving the nature of possession of the person in possession of the property covered by that document, though it is not admissible for proving the terms and conditions of the rental agreement therein. Hence, the impugned order of the lower Court is contrary to the settled proposition of law. 6. In the result, the revision petition is allowed, as indicated above, setting aside the impugned order of the Rent Controller. No costs. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 06.12.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3890 of 2010 06.12.2010 (Msr) [1] 2004 (3) ALD 817