IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 109 of 2008. Judgment reserved on 27.4.2011. Date of Decision: 4.5.2011. Krishan Dev Kaushal …Petitioner. Versus Ram Pal Sharma …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? Yes. For the Petitioner: Mr. Y.P. Sood Advocate. For Respondent: Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J . 1. This Revision Petition under Section 24 (5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order dated 1.3.2008 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla whereby he upheld the order of eviction dated 31.8.2007 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Theog, District Shimla. 2. The main dispute in this case is with regard to the rate of rent. It is not disputed by any of the parties that the petitioner is a tenant in the premises in question which were rented out to him by the respondent-landlord in the year 1992. According to the landlord, the rent of the premises in question : 2 : was settled at Rs. 3,650/- per month. After allowing enhancement in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 4,416.50 paise in December, 2002. The landlord claimed that the petitioner has not paid rent since January, 2003 till the date of filing of the petition. 3. The respondent did not deny the fact that he was a tenant, but according to the tenant the premises were rented out to him at a rent of Rs. 1500/- per month which was enhanced to Rs. 1650/- per month in the year 1998 and in the year 2003 the rent was increased to Rs. 1800/- per month. According to the tenant he had paid rent upto February 2004. The learned Rent Controller, Theog, as well as the learned Appellate Court held the tenant to be in arrears of rent from January 2003 upto March 2005 and also held that the rent at the relevant time was Rs. 4,416.50 paise per month. 4. The petitioner by means of this petition has challenged the order of both the Courts below. The main ground raised on behalf of the tenant is that both the Courts below have erred in relying upon the agreement Ext. P1, since the same was not registered and therefore, could not have been read in evidence. The further contention of Mr. Y.P.Sood, learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the copy maintained by the : 3 : tenant and in the Municipal record, the rent was recorded as Rs. 1800/- per month, therefore, findings of both the Courts below with regard to the rate of rent are totally incorrect. 5. It is not disputed before me that vide document Ext. P1 which is in the nature of a rent note, the premises in question were rented out for a period of 5 years. This document definitely was required to be registered in terms of Section 17 of the Registration Act. The question which arises is, whether this document can be looked into, to determine what was the rate of rent agreement agreed to between the parties?. 6. Section 49 of the Registration Act reads as follows:- “Section 49: Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered:- No document required by Section 17 or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered shall- (a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or (b) confer any power to adopt, or (c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered: Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act, or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument.” 7. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the tenant does not dispute his signatures on the said document, though according to him, these signatures were obtained by misrepresentation and the rate of rent was to be filled in at a later : 4 : stage. However, this explanation of his appear to be wholly incorrect, since the rate of rent has not been filled in at a later stage and the rate of rent is mentioned both in figures and in writing and has been typed and has not been filled in at a later stage. The witnesses to this document have also supported the landlord. The only question is whether rate of rent is a collateral purpose or not. 8. Mr. Y.P.Sood, learned counsel for the tenant has placed reliance on the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Tikka Ram Vs. M/s Chhina Industries, 2000(2) RCR 10. In that case the condition which was desired to be read in evidence was that according to the agreement the rent was to be paid in advance. The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the condition of advance payment is not collateral and therefore, cannot be read in evidence. 9. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Relangi Nageswara Rao Vs. Tatha Chiranjeeva Rao (died) through L.Rs., 2000(2) RCR 557 after considering number of authorities held as follows:- “23. The expression collateral purpose is very vague and the Court must decide in each case whether the purpose for which the unregistered document was sought to be used is really a collateral purpose or to establish the existence of lease and its terms and conditions.” : 5 : 10. It would be pertinent to mention that in the case before the Andhra Pradesh High Court the relationship between the parties were denied and therefore, the High Court held that the document could not be read into evidence, since the petitioner was trying to establish the relationship of landlord or tenant only on the basis of said document. 11. Another judgment relied upon by Mr. Y.P.Sood, learned counsel for the tenant is in Modern Food Industries (India)Limited Vs. I.K. Malik, 2002(2) RCR 689 wherein the Delhi High Court held that if a document is inadmissible for non- registration, all its terms are inadmissible including the one dealing with the landlord's permission for the renewal of the lease and the increase of the rent. 12. In my view none of the aforesaid judgments are applicable in the present case. The tenant has not denied the nature of his possession. He admits that he is a tenant and that the tenancy was created in the year 1992. The document Ext. P1 may not be read in evidence for any other purpose, but for collateral purpose it can be read in evidence. The proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act quoted hereinabove clearly states that an unregistered document which otherwise required registration can be received in evidence of any collateral : 6 : transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. The rate of rent could have been fixed even for a monthly tenancy in which case it would not have required registration. In such an eventuality, the lease deed can be read into evidence to decide what was the rent fixed by the parties. In this agreement the rent is specifically shown to be Rs. 3,650/- per month. 13. Even if one was to exclude the document Ext. P1, there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the rent was not Rs. 1800/- per month as claimed by the respondent. No reliance can be placed on the diary Ext. RW2/A, since the same has been only produced by the defendant and the handwriting expert has stated that the signatures on the same cannot be identified to be that of the landlord. Both the Courts below especially the learned Lower Appellate Court even on comparison of these signatures of the landlord on this document with his signatures on other document has come to the conclusion that they cannot be said to be identical. As far as the Municipal record is concerned, it has been proved on record in the statement of Shakuntla Verma that the assessment in the Municipal record was recorded on the basis of the information supplied by the tenant and that the said document was only signed by the tenant and not by the landlord. As such no reliance : 7 : can be placed on the same. The other evidence on record indicates that the rent was fixed as claimed by the landlord. In Revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot set aside the findings of fact arrived at by the learned Rent Controller or by the learned Appellate Authority. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition which is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 5000/-. (Deepak Gupta) Judge. 4th May, 2011. (Krn Guleria)