BHARATI SAPRU, J. Service on the respondents has been deemed to be sufficient. The respondents have not cared to appear till now. 2. This writ petition has been filed against an order passed by the Court below dated 29. 4. 2000 by which the Court below has impounded the rent deed dated 1. 5. 2008 and has sent it to the Collector for taking appropriate action. 3. A bare perusal of the rent deed shows that the rent deed was for a pe riod of 11 months. 4. Under the provisions of section 17 (1) (d) such an instrument is not liable to be registered. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Satish Kumar v. Zarif Ahmed and oth ers 1997 (30) ALR 189 (SC ). 5. In view of the above dictum as well as in view of the provisions of sec tion 17 (1) (d) of the Registration Act, 1908, the contention raised by the peti tioner has substance. The impugned order dated 29. 4. 2000 is set aside. The Court below will proceed with the S. C. C. Suit No. 4 of 2006, Subhash Chand v. Anil Kumar in accordance with law. 6. The writ petition is allowed. Petition Allowed. .