JUDGMENT 1. - The facts in brief are that a civil suit for eviction was filed against the petitioner defendant which is presently pending before the Civil Judge (S.D.) Ratangarh. In the pleadings of respondent plaintiff it is pleaded that the defendant petitioner has taken another shop on rent. Defendant-petitioner wants to disprove this allegation and, therefore, he filed an application that the shop which is alleged to have been acquired by the defendant is actually with the witness Pawan Kumar who is a tenant in the shop situated opposite Punjab National Bank, Morri Bazar, Ratangarh. The defendant wanted to prove an agreement dated 30.3.1995 executed by Pawan Kumar in favour of Banwarilal. When the same was submitted before the learned trial Judge it held that the document was inadmissible in evidence and as such refused to admit the same in evidence. It is against this order that the revision has been filed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the document was admissible in evidence for collateral purposes and the lower Court should not have refused to admit the same in evidence as the purpose of the defendant was simply to prove that the shop which is alleged to have been acquired by the defendant is actually in tenancy of Pawan Kumar and not of the defendant. He submitted that according to Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act only a lease of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent, can be made only by a registered instrument. While all other leases of immovable property may be made either by a registered instrument or by agreement accompanied by delivery of possession. So the document which is an agreement did not require registration and hence it was admissible in evidence. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent plaintiff submitted that the document is inadmissible in evidence and the trial Court has not committed any illegality in disallowing its admission. 5. I have gone through the document in question. I find that it is a lease deed executed by Pawan Kumar in favour of Banwarilal before two witnesses on 30.3.1995. It mentions that yearly rent was Rs. 800/- and the lease period was seven years. 5. I have gone through the document in question. I find that it is a lease deed executed by Pawan Kumar in favour of Banwarilal before two witnesses on 30.3.1995. It mentions that yearly rent was Rs. 800/- and the lease period was seven years. Thus, the lease is of immovable property exceeding for more than one year reserving the yearly rent of Rs. 800/-. Such a document required registration as per provisions of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, the leaned trial Judge was right in holding that the document will not be admitted in evidence as the same as not registered as per requirement of Section 107 of Transfer of Property Act. The document which required registration cannot be admitted in evidence as per provisions of Section 17 of Registration Act itself. The order of learned Civil Judge does not suffer from any infirmity and it is hereby affirmed. 6. Consequently, the revision has no force and is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******