Bela M.Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dt. 7/12/2013 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metro, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Original Application No. 4 of 2009, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners -defendants raising objections against exhibiting the document, namely, the certified copy of the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 91 of 1990, produced by the respondent No. 1 -plaintiff. The respondent No. 1 -plaintiff has filed the suit for eviction against the present petitioners, and the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in respect of the suit premises on the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement, and on the ground of denial of title and alternative accommodation. It has been alleged in the said suit that the suit premises was originally let out by Shri Gorvardhan Das Malpani to M/s. Saraavagi Finance & Credit Corporation, a partnership firm, by executing a rent note dt. 25.09.1968. As per the further case of the respondent -plaintiff, in a suit for partition being No. 91 of 1990, filed by Naval Kishore Malpani, against the respondent -plaintiff, Gorvardhan Das Malpani and others, the decree came to be passed on 25th August, 1998, where under the premises in question had fallen into the share of the respondent -plaintiff. The said suit has been resisted by the petitioners, and the other defendants by filing the written statement denying the allegations/averments made in the eviction suit. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the issues. It appears that when the suit was fixed for recording of the evidence, the respondent -plaintiff submitted the affidavit for examination -in -chief and produced the documents, one of them being the certified copy of the decree dt. 25th August, 1998 passed in the Civil Suit No. 91 of 1990, marking it as Ex. 13. The petitioners -defendants having raised objection against the admissibility of the said document in evidence on the ground of being not registered and not duly stamped, the Tribunal has dismissed the said objection vide the impugned order, against which the present petition has been filed.
(2.) IT has been vehemently submitted by the learned counsel Mr. G.P. Sharma for the petitioners that the document in question being not registered under the Registration Act, 1908 and not duly stamped as required under the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Stamp Act'), the same could not be read in evidence. Placing reliance on the definition of the "instrument of partition" as contained in Section 2(xx), he submitted that the decree in question was required to be duly stamped as per the provisions contained in the Stamp Act, and the same being not duly stamped could not be read in evidence for any purpose, as per Section 39 of the Stamp Act. He submitted that the Tribunal has decided the application in a very cursory manner without dealing with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, and the impugned order being illegal, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. He also submitted that the Trial Court ought to have referred the document to the Collector for examination under Sec. 37 of the Stamp Act. However, the learned counsel Mr. R.K. Daga for the respondent -plaintiff submitted that the decree was duly stamped as per the direction given by the concerned Court and the certified copy of the said decree having been produced by the respondent, the same is admissible in evidence. He also submitted that the decree passed by the Court is not required to be compulsorily registered in view of the provisions contained in Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act.
(3.) ALTHOUGH the learned counsel Mr. Sharma for the petitioners had initially raised the objection that the document was the photostate copy of the decree as referred to in the impugned order, he had subsequently conceded that the document was the certified copy of the decree in question. As regards the admissibility of the document, though it is true that the document, which requires registration under the Registration Act if is not registered, would not be admissible in evidence except as per the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, it is required to be noted that the decree or order of a Court, except a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise and comprising immovable property other than that which is the subject matter of the suit or the proceeding, is not required to be registered in view of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act. Mr. Sharma has failed to point out as to how the document would not fall under Sec. 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act. Even otherwise, as per the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, such document could be received as evidence of the collateral transaction.;