Judgment :- Common order: These two revisions have several aspects in common. The parties are referred to, as arrayed in C.R.P.No.2815 of 2006. The first respondent and the husband of second respondent by name Narasimha Rao are brothers. In the family partition among the first respondent, Narasimha Rao and their father by name Somaraju, Narasimha Rao got Acs.3.59 cents in Survey No.689/1 of Singarajupalem village. Narasimha Rao died on 28.01.1998. The second respondent and her daughter (third respondent in C.R.P.No.2815 of 2006) executed a sale deed dated 23.07.1999 in favour of the petitioner in respect of the said land and certain other piece of land. The first respondent filed A.T.C.No.80 of 2000 under Sections 15 and 16 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (‘the Act’ for brevity) before the Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 with a prayer to declare him that he is a statutory tenant entitled for protection under the Act as regards the land in S.No.689/1. He relied upon a lease deed dated 13.12.1997 said to have been executed by Narasmiha Rao in his favour for a period of three years on an annual rent of Rs.9,000/-. A.T.C. was mainly opposed by the petitioner by filing a counter, which was adopted by respondents 2 and 3. The very existence of lease deed dated 13.12.1997 was disputed and objection was also raised to its admissibility. The first respondent filed I.A.No.470 of 2002 in A.T.C.No.80 of 2000 seeking permission of the Court to deposit the rents into the Court. This was dismissed by the trial Court on 21.03.2003. Aggrieved by the same, he filed A.T.A.No.7 of 2005 in the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal-cum-Principal District Court, West Godavari, Eluru, and the lower appellate Court has allowed the A.T.A. on 20.02.2006. C.R.P.No.3267 of 2006 is filed against the said order. Through its order dated 17.11.2004, the trial Court dismissed the A.T.C. on finding that there did not exist any relationship of landlord and tenant, between the first respondent on the one hand and the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3, on the other hand. The first respondent filed A.T.A.No.47 of 2004 before the lower appellate Court. The appeal was allowed on 20.02.2006. C.R.P.No.2815 of 2006 is filed against the same. The first respondent filed A.T.A.No.47 of 2004 before the lower appellate Court. The appeal was allowed on 20.02.2006. C.R.P.No.2815 of 2006 is filed against the same. Sri S. Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the document dated 13.12.1997 was totally inadmissible in evidence since it is said to be a lease deed for a period of three years but not registered. He contends that taking advantage of failing health of his brother, the first respondent brought into existence the document and prevented the legal representatives of his brother, Narasimha Rao, from enjoying their property. The learned counsel further submits that the lower appellate Court proceeded under a wrong assumption of law that, for any lease up to six years, registration is not necessary at all. Sri M.V. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the first respondent, on the other hand, submits that his client has established existence of lease in respect of agricultural land and thereby he is entitled for protection under the Act. He placed reliance upon judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Ambati Durgamma and others vs. Pericherla Jagapathiraju and others 2005(1) ALT 357 and submits that the document evidencing lease covered by the Act need not be registered. The petitioner is the transferee of the land from respondents 2 and 3. The first respondent, who is none other than the brother of Narasimha Rao, the husband of the second respondent and father of the third respondent in C.R.P.No.2815 of 2006, pleaded existence of lease in his favour and accordingly instituted A.T.C.No.80 of 2000. He prayed for a declaration that he is a statutory tenant under the Act. The document dated 13.12.1997 was marked as Ex.A-2. According to its recitals, Narasimha Rao was suffering from disease of cancer and for the treatment thereof the first respondent advanced a sum of Rs.27,000/- and in consideration thereof, he was permitted to cultivate the land for a period of three years. If the document is to be treated as lease deed, it emerges that it is for a period exceeding eleven months and in the ordinary course, required to be registered as per Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (‘TP Act’ for short). Much endeavour was made by the first respondent to convince the trial Court that the document of that nature need not be registered. Much endeavour was made by the first respondent to convince the trial Court that the document of that nature need not be registered. The trial Court dismissed A.T.C. The lower appellate Court made certain observations with reference to the leases under the Act. According to the understanding of that Court, if the lease is for a period, less than six years, it need not be registered at all. Para 14 of the judgment dated 20.02.2006 in A.T.A.No.47 of 2004, it reads as under: “So, it is evident that of the lease is for six years and if in writing the same should be registered. If it is less than the period, it does not require any registration. It is an independent Act, which is having specific provision for the enforcement of the Tenancy Act over the activity, though no relationship of landlord and tenant. Even otherwise, the document itself shows that it is admissible for collateral purpose to prove the possession.” The first observation that the lease for a period less than six years does not require registration is difficult to be accepted, in the teeth of the requirement of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 and Section 107 of TP Act. The reason is that irrespective of the parties to the lease, once it is in respect of an immovable property and for a period exceeding eleven months, it must be registered. It is a different thing that a lease in respect of an agricultural land, to be covered under the provisions of the Act need not be through a registered document. In a given case oral lease for a period, exceeding eleven months can also be pleaded and proved. Where, however, the lease is evidenced by a written document for a period exceeding eleven moths, the requirement as to registration is not exempted even if the lease is in respect of an agricultural land. The principle is comparable to the transaction of a gift made by a person belonging to muslim community. Such a person has the benefit or facility of making oral gift without complying the provisions of Section 123 of TP Act. If, however, he chooses to execute a written document, it must be registered. The second observation made by the lower appellate Court that the document is admissible for collateral purposes, is equally untenable, in the facts of the case. If, however, he chooses to execute a written document, it must be registered. The second observation made by the lower appellate Court that the document is admissible for collateral purposes, is equally untenable, in the facts of the case. The reason is that the relief claimed in the A.T.C. itself is about establishing a lease. Ex.A-2 was pressed into service to prove the lease. That purpose cannot be treated as collateral. Therefore, the approach of the lower appellate Court cannot be countenanced. Viewed from any angle, the judgment rendered by the lower appellate Court cannot be up held. Therefore, Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. Impugned orders dated 20.02.2006 in A.T.A.No.47 of 2004 and A.T.A.No.7 of 2005 passed by the lower appellate Court are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the first respondent is depositing the rents with the permission of the Courts below from time to time. As a result of allowing C.R.P.No.2815 of 2006, it emerges that the first respondent is not entitled to protection under the Act. However, he can be evicted only by having recourse by the proceedings. The petitioner shall be entitled to withdraw the amount that is deposited to the credit of A.T.C. No.80 of 2000. In case she files a suit for recovery of damages against the first respondent, the said amount shall be taken into account.