D.K. Mahajan, J. - (1.) My learned brother, by his order dated January 11, 1972, referred this petition for revision to a larger Bench. That is how the matter has been placed before us.
(2.) The facts are simple and may be stated. Shrimati Lila Wati filed a suit for ejectment of Remington Rand of India (Ltd.) from the premises rented by them in Sector 17. According to her, the tenancy was from month to month. The defendant took up the position that the tenancy was for a fixed period of twenty years, and in support of that set up the document marked "A". This document is unstamped and registered. An objection was taken by the plaintiff that it was inadmissible in evidence and could not be used for any purpose. Further, Section 91 of the Evidence Act was pressed into service that the terms of the document could not be proved by oral evidence because the document was in writing. The plaintiff, when in the witness-box, was sought to be confronted with the document under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. This raised the question whether in view of the provisions of Section 91 of the Evidence Act and Section 49 of the Registration Act, the document could be used to contradict the plaintiff? The trial Court settled this dispute as follows: "I allow the defendants to confront the plaintiff with the document marked 'A' only to the extent that it may be available under Explanation 3 to Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act and not beyond that."
(3.) The question whether an unregistered deed of lease could be used for purposes of part-performance and could be let in evidence was left undecided as at this stage that question had not arisen.;