1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Kiran S Purohit Vs. The Rent Tribunal, Jaipur & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.756/2010) S.B. Civil Writ Petition under Articles 227 & 226 of the Constitution of India Date of Order :- March 10, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.Saransh Saini, for the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 08th September, 2009 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Jaipur whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner wherein the petitioner had prayed that the respondent No.2, Harish Ahlawat be directed to either pay penalty of Rs.20,780/-, or the lease agreement dated 04th August, 2003 should be impounded and the same should not be read in evidence. The brief facts of the case are that Harish Ahalwat, the respondent No.2, filed a suit before the learned Tribunal against the petitioner for eviction on the ground that after the termination of the lease, the petitioner has become a trespasser and the plot is needed on a bona fide basis. The petitioner filed his written statement and denied the allegations. Subsequently, on 06th August, 2009, the petitioner moved an application 2 wherein he contended that the lease agreement dated 04th August, 2003 was not drawn up properly as the stamp duty required to be paid on such a lease deed was not affixed. The lease agreement was drawn up on a stamp paper of Rs.100/- whereas it should have been drawn up on a stamp paper of Rs.2,178/-. The petitioner further prayed that since the lease agreement is improperly stamped, the same should be impounded or in the alternative the lees agreement should not be read in evidence. However, vide order dated 08th September, 2009 the learned Tribunal dismissed the said application. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. Saransh Saini, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that in case the lease agreement is not stamped properly and is not registered, then the said lease agreement cannot be read in evidence. He has further contended that the learned Tribunal has not appreciated the provisions of law in proper prospective. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. Although Section 17 of the Registration Act debars a document to be read in evidence in case it is not duly registered, but Section 49 of the Act permits that the said document can be read for collateral purposes. Thus, the learned 3 Tribunal is free to read the said lease agreement for collateral purposes. Moreover and most importantly, since the petitioner had already admitted the fact that he is the tenant of Harish Ahalwat, the lease agreement looses much of importance. Obviously, the learned Tribunal is concerned with the issues whether the petitioner is a trespasser or not ? And whether Harish Ahalwat has a bona fide necessity for having the plot or not ? Thus, there is neither any perversity, nor any illegality in the impugned order. For the reasons stated above, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki-