- (1.) The petitioner herein was the respondent-tenant in H. R. C. o. 1584of 1980 on the file of the 14th Judge,Court of Small Causes, Madras. The above case was instituted by the land lady, daughter of one Henry Issidore, who is respondent in this revision, under Section 10 (2) (v) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Act 18 of 1960) (hereinafter to be re5 ferred to as the Act) on the ground of 11 causing nuisance to the landlady as well 9 as the lodgers f the adjacent lodge. The 10 landlady has also filed two other cases in HRC Nos. 1585 and 1586 of 980 12 against the same tenant for eviction on the ground of additional accommodation and on the round of willful default respectively. Besides these three cases, there' are 9 other eviction petitions against the same tenant by the brother Mad and mother of the respondent herein. All. the eviction petitions are being tried together and common evidence is being led in HRC No. 1,584 of 1980. In the trial of these cases, the father of the respondent here4n, viz, Henry Issidore is being examined as P.W. I whose evidence is partly recorded. During the examination o! PW. 1, three unregistered documents were sought to be filed on behalf of the eviction petitioners in all the cases. On behalf of the petitioner herein, who is the respondent-tenant in all the 12 cases, objection was raised as to the admissibility of these documents, both under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act and under the Indian Stamp Act. It is seen from the records that the learned Rent Controller stopped further examination of P. W. 1, at that stage and adjourned the proceedings to the next day, i. e., 2971-1981, on which date one Tajudin Ahmed working as Manager in Hotel Impala and Impala Sweets belonging to the tenant filed a petition in M. P. No. 59 of 1981, supported by an affidavit submitting that the three unregistered documents sought to be filed cannot be admitted in evidence and requesting the Rent Controller to decide as a preliminary issue, the admissibilitv of these three unregistered documents relied on by the landlords. P. W. 1 who is the father of the respondent herein filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the landlady countering the objections raised by the tenant and setting out various reasons for admitting these documents in evidence. Thereafter the tenant himself filed a reply affidavit repelling the contentions raised in the counter affidavit filed by Mr. Henry Is sidore and reiterating the stand taken by the tenant that the three unregistered documents cannot at all be admitted in evidence. The learned Rent Controller, on perusing the affidavits and documents and hearing the arguments of the, counsel representing both the parties, has passed his order dismissing the petition in M. P. No. 59 of 1981, holding that the three documents sought to be filed do not create a present demise and, therefore, it is not necessary that these documents should be registered under Section 17 (1) (d) of the Registration Act, and alternatively holding that at even if we hold that the documents cannot be looked into for the reason that they are not registered, there is nothing which prevents from admitting in evidence for a collateral transaction Dissatisfied with the order of the Rent Controller, the tenant referred an appeal in HRA No. 206 of 1981, questioning the validity and legality of the order passed by he Rent Controller. It seems from the order of the appellate authority that a contention was raise6i on he strength of a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Central Bank of India v. Gokal Chand, that the order passed by the Rent Controller is only an interlocutory order which is merely procedural and which does, not affect the rights and liabilities of the parties, and therefore, no appeal would lie against such an order and the any course left open to the parties is to set forth the error or defect, if any, in such an order in the grounds of objections in his appeal in the final order in the main proceedings. The appellate authority, while examining the contention raised on behalf of the tenant, that all the three documents do create a present demise and as such the contrary conclusion arrived at by the Rent Controller is erroneous, has answered the contention as follows "A scrutiny of this impugned document would show that there was no dispute with regard to the rate of rent, commencement of the tenancy, description of the property and period of tenancy, which are all necessary to satisfy to hold that the document is a lease agreement. If the documents are approached with that object it would appear that they are inadmissible in evidence for want of registration."
(2.) After having answered the contention of the tenant as pointed out above the appellate authority considering the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, and referring to two decisions of this court, viz C. S. Kumarasami Gounder v. Aravaairi Gounder. and Rangaiya Bagavathar v. Kesava Bagavathar, held that even if these documents could not be admitted for want of registration, those documents could be admitted in evidence for collateral purposes of proving the nature and character of possession, Pursuant to the above finding, the appeal was dismissed and the order of the Rent Controller Hence this revision.
(3.) The learned Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner-tenant after taking me through the three documents sought to be filed, submitted that these three documents do create a present demise and therefore they have to be compulsorily stamped and registered under the provisions of the Stamp Act and the Regstn. Act. He would further add that when the landlords themselves do not put forth a specific case that these documents are necessary for any collateral purpose, t appellate authority is not justified in rendering a decision that these documents could be admitted for the collateral purpose of proving the nature and character of the possession. Countering the above submission, an argument was advanced by Mr. Biksheswaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, that no appeal or revision would lie as against an order of this nature which is purely procedural, in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India V. Gokai Chand, and this court in Chinnaraju Naidu v. Bavani Bai, C. R. P. No. 646 of 1981* (The second cited judgment was rendered by this court following the first cited Supreme Court decision in Central Bank's case). The learned Advocate General would urge that the order passed by the Rent Controller is not an interlocutory order, but a final order affecting the rights and liabilities of parties and, therefore, an appeal and a revision would lie. Mr. Biksheswaran, though would not agree with the finding of the lower appellate court as regards the creation of a present demise in the documents, would, however, attempt to sustain the dismissal of the appeal inter alia contending that all the three documents do not create any present demise and as such these documents need not be stamped or registered and, therefore, no valid objection could be raised for the admission of these documents. He would further urge that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Bank's case and that of this court in Chinnaraju Naidu v. Bavani Bai, C. R. P. No. 646 of 1.981, the appeal itself ought not to have been entertained and the present revision is unsustainable.;