JUDGMENT : 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has laid a challenge to the order dated 06.09.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Didwana, District Nagaur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court), whereby petitioner’s application dated 06.09.2017 under Section 39 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, has been rejected. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts within the contours of the controversy and questions involved in the case at hand are that the respondent-landlord had filed a suit for recovery of possession of the shop let out to the petitioner-defendant, after serving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 3. In support of the above suit, the plaintiff had placed on record, an agreement dated 15.09.2000, comprising various agreed terms, including the fact that the demised premises has been let out to the defendant (petitioner) for a monthly rent of Rs.300/-. 4. 3. In support of the above suit, the plaintiff had placed on record, an agreement dated 15.09.2000, comprising various agreed terms, including the fact that the demised premises has been let out to the defendant (petitioner) for a monthly rent of Rs.300/-. 4. With a view to have a better grasp of the controversy, it will not be out of place to reproduce the relevant part of the agreement above referred, which runs thus:- ^^bdjkjukek ,d eq> guqekuizlkn iq= fryksdpUnth lksuh fuoklh MhMokuk rglhy MhMokuk ftyk & ukxkSj ¼jktŒ½ okys us vki vkseizdk'k ukxksjh iq= LoŒ jkexksiky th ukxksjh fuoklh MhMokuk rglhy & MhMokuk ftyk & ukxkSj ¼jktŒ½ ds gd esa fy[kok fn;k fd vkids LokfeRo dh ,d nqdku gLc tsy iM+ksl chp dh tks cktkj MhMOkkuk esa vofLFkr gS eq>s bdjkjdrkZ fdjk;snkj us vkils fdjk;s ij yh gSa ftl nqdku dk fdjk;k :i;k 300@& v{kjs rhu lkS :i;k ekgokj nj ls nsuk r; fd;k gS tks fd ekg nj ekg vkidks vnk djrk jgwWxkA fdjk;k fdlh Hkh lwjr esa p<k;k ldwaxk ughaA fdjk;k tks vnk d:axk mldk bUnzkt bl bdjkjukek ij djokrk jgwaxk vFkok vyx ls jlhn ysrk jgwaxkA rhu lky dh vof/k lekfIr ij bl r; lqnk fdjk;k dk nl izfr'kr c<+k djds gh fdjk;snkj jg ldwaxk vkSj ml lwjr esa iqu% fdjk;snkjh dk bdjkjukek fy[kus ds fy;s ikcUn jgwaxkA nkSjkus fdjk;snkjh ds uxjikfydk ds x`gdj dh vnk;xh Hkh eSa fdjk;snkj vnk djus dks ikcUn jgawxkA fdjk;s yh xbZ nqdku esa fctyh yh gqbZ ugha gS] vr% vxj eSa fdjk;snkj esjh vko';drk ij fctyh dusD'ku ysuk pkgwaxk rks esjs [kpkZ ls ys ldwaxk vkSj tks fctyh [kpkZ dk fcy vk;sxk mldh vnk;xh fdjk;s dh jkf'k ds vykok djus dks eSa ikcUn jgwaxkA fdjk;s yh xbZ nqdku ds iM+ksl bl izdkj ls gSA** 5. A written statement was filed by the petitioner, wherein neither the existence nor admissibility of the agreement aforesaid was disputed. However, an application dated 06.09.2017 captioned to be an application under Section 35 of the Stamp Act, 1908 (sic) came to be filed by the defendant-petitioner, contending that the Rent Agreement dated 15.09.2000 be compounded for determination of proper stamp duty. However, an application dated 06.09.2017 captioned to be an application under Section 35 of the Stamp Act, 1908 (sic) came to be filed by the defendant-petitioner, contending that the Rent Agreement dated 15.09.2000 be compounded for determination of proper stamp duty. The prayer made in the application is being reproduced hereinafter:- ^^1- ;g fd oknh us vius okn i= ds lkFk ,d bdjkjukek ckcr fdjk;snkjh nqdku fnukafdr 15-09-2000 dk ÁLrqr fd;k gSA blesa vafdr fd;k gS fd rhu lky dh vof/k lekfIr ij bl r; 'kqnk fdjk;k dk 10 Áfr'kr c<+k djds gh fdjk;snkj jg ldawxk mDr bdjkjukek ckcr fdjk;snkjh ,d 100@& :i;s ds LVkEi ij vafdr fd;k gqvk gSA 2- ;g fd bdjkjukek ckcr fdjk;snkjh nqdku fnukafdr 15-09-2000 dks i<+us ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd bl bdjkjukek ckcr fdjk;snkjh nqdku ,d bl Ádkj dk nLrkost gS tks Li"V :i ls ,d lky ls vf/kd vof/k ckcr lEiUu fd;k x;k gSa tks Li"V :i ls lkLor fdjk;snkjh dk nLrkost ÁdV gksrk gSA ftldk iathdj.k djok;k tkuk dkuwuu vko';d gSA 3- ;g fd bl bdjkjukek ckcr fdjk;snkjh nqdku dk dkuwuu iathdj.k ,oa i;kZIr LVkEi ij lEiUu fd;k tkuk vko';d gS vkSj bl bdjkjukek ckcr fdjk;snkjh nqdku tks vi;kZIr LVkEi ij gS] ftlds dkj.k ;g lk{; esa xzkg~; Hkh ugha gSA 4- ;g fd U;k;ky; esa ÁLrqr vly fdjk;kukek le{k vf/kdkjh ds le{k ÁLrqr fd;k tkdj deikm.M djok;k tkuk vko';d gS vkSj bl fdjk;sukek dks de ikm.M djus dk dk;Z LVkEi dysDVj eqækad] vtesj }kjk gh fd;k tk ldrk gSA 5- ;g fd Åij of.kZr bdjkjukek ckcr fdjk;kukek nqdku ewy U;k;ky; Jheku~ ds le{k ÁLrqr gks pqdk gS ,oa i=koyh lk{; oknh esa fu/kkZfjr gS vkSj U;k;ky; Jheku~ dh tkudkjh esa mDr nLrkost vk pqdk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa U;k;ky; Jheku~ bls le{k vf/kdkjh ds le{k bl nLrkost dks deikm.M djokus ckcr fHktokus gsrq l{ke vf/kdkjh gSA vr% ÁkFkZuk i= ÁLrqr dj fuosnu gS fd mDr fdjk;sukek dks l{ke vf/kdkjh LVkEi dysDVj eqækad ds ;gka fHktok;k tkdj bls deikm.M djok;k tkosA blls iwoZ nLrkost bdjkjukek ckcr fdjk;snkjh nqdku fnukafdr 15-09-2000 dks lk{; esa xzkg~; ugha fd;k tkosA vkidh vfr Ñik gksxhA** 6. Learned Trial Court, vide its order dated 06.09.2017, rejected the said application, while holding that the petitioner-defendant had accepted the tenancy and further that the tenancy in question is on month to month basis. Learned Trial Court, vide its order dated 06.09.2017, rejected the said application, while holding that the petitioner-defendant had accepted the tenancy and further that the tenancy in question is on month to month basis. The learned Court below has also held that proper stamp duty on the said document had been paid. 7. Mr. Chetan Prakash Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant, assailing the order dated 06.09.2017, submitted that there is a clear stipulation of the renewal of the tenancy after expiry of three years; which, if considered in light of the conduct of the parties, viz., the consolidated payment of rent for a longer period, or on year to year basis; the only conclusion, one can draw is that the tenancy was annual and not monthly. 8. To substantiate his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant invited attention of the Court towards five rent receipts submitted along with the writ petition, evincing consolidated payment of Rs. 8,400/- from 15.05.2001 to 14.09.2003, Rs. 11,880/- from 15.09.2003 to 14.09.2006, Rs.13,068/- from 15.09.2006 to 14.09.2009, Rs. 19,900/- from 15.09.2003 to 14.09.2012 and Rs. 4,400/- from 15.09.2012 to 14.07.2013. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the payment of rent has not been made on month to month basis, despite stipulation of monthly payment, the subject agreement should be treated to be an annual agreement or annual lease. Mr. Soni referred to Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and contended that since the agreement in question is an yearly lease deed, it is required to be registered and sans such registration, the document in question cannot be read in evidence, by virtue of Section 49 of the Registration Act. 10. For the sake of ready reference, provisions contained in Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 are reproduced hereunder:- “107 : Lease how made:- 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 document. All other leases of immovable property may be made either by a registered instrument or by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession. All other leases of immovable property may be made either by a registered instrument or by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession. Where a lease of immovable property is made by a registered instrument, such instrument or, where there are more instruments than one, each such instrument shall be executed by both the lessor and the lessee: Provided that the State Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that leases of immovable property, other than leases from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent, or any class of such leases, may be made by unregistered instrument or by oral agreement without delivery of possession.” *** “49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered.- No document required by Section 17 or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) to be registered shall- (a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or (b) confer any power to adopt, or (c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or unless it has been registered: Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (1 of 1877) or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument.” 11. Reading the aforesaid provisions, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the registration of the agreement in question was compulsory and in absence of such registration, the document cannot be relied upon by the plaintiff nor the same is admissible in evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per Article 14 of the Schedule appended to the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, 5% of the two years’ rent is payable on the lease deed in question. 12. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Muhammad Ismail Khan Vs. 12. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Muhammad Ismail Khan Vs. Jawahir Lal & Ors., reported in AIR 1935 Allahabad 492 and submitted that for the purpose of determining the nature of a lease, three factors are required to be looked into, namely, words employed in the lease, surrounding circumstances and the subsequent conduct of the parties. 13. In light of the observations made by the Allahabad High Court, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the parties have paid the rent for more than a year, which was duly accepted by the landlord, the lease in question or the agreement in question loses its character of a monthly lease. 14. Mr. Sanjeev Johari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, supporting the order impugned, submitted that since the factum of the tenancy between the plaintiff-landlord and defendant-tenant is/was not in dispute, the question raised by the petitioner is only academic and that as prescribed in Article 33 of the Schedule appended to the Rajasthan Stamp Act,1998, the appropriate stamp duty equal to two years’ average rent has already been paid. Mr. Johari submitted that the parties have accepted the factum of relationship of landlord and tenant and once the basic fact of tenancy is admitted, some variation in payment of rent or acceptance of rent cannot alter the statutory position between the parties and the defendant cannot be permitted to refute such position of law on the ground of technical or venial discrepancies. Learned counsel added that the agreement in question is not required to be registered in view of the express stipulation of monthly tenancy made in the agreement, which in express terms records that the tenancy would be on month to month basis, as a monthly rent of Rs.300/- had been agreed by and between the parties. 15. In relation to payment of stamp duty, he submitted that firstly the document in question having been executed in the year 2000, would be governed by the Indian Stamp Act, 1882 and not by the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, which has come into force on 27.05.2004, subsequent to the execution of the document under consideration. 15. In relation to payment of stamp duty, he submitted that firstly the document in question having been executed in the year 2000, would be governed by the Indian Stamp Act, 1882 and not by the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, which has come into force on 27.05.2004, subsequent to the execution of the document under consideration. He added that even going by the provisions of the Act of 1998, appropriate stamp duty has been paid, which is equal to the duty payable on a Bond under Article 14 of the Schedule, as the lease deed in question is for a period, less than a year. 16. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and considered the submissions and arguments advanced at the Bar. 17. The petitioner has alleged that the document in question is not admissible in evidence, as the same had not been got registered, which is a fundamental requirement for a lease exceeding one year’s period. 18. Before delving upon the questions posed by the parties, it would be profitable to go to the brass tacks and the basic provisions contained in Transfer of Property Act, particularly Section 105 and Section 107 thereof. A close and conjoint reading of these provisions reveals that to be called a lease, the document is required to be executed by both the parties involved therein, namely, transferor and transferee. For ready reference, provisions contained in Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is being reproduced hereunder:- “105. Lease defined.- A lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made for a certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or promised, or of money, a share of crops, service or any other thing of value, to be rendered periodically or on specified occasions to the transferor by the transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms. Lessor, lessee, premium and rent defined.- The transferor is called the lessor, the transferee is called the lessee, the price is called the premium, and the money, share, service or other thing to be so rendered is called the rent.” 19. A bare look at the definition aforesaid, leaves no room for ambiguity that a lease agreement has to be executed by the transferor and the transferee should accept the transfer on such terms. A bare look at the definition aforesaid, leaves no room for ambiguity that a lease agreement has to be executed by the transferor and the transferee should accept the transfer on such terms. In juxtaposition of the provisions aforesaid, if the agreement dated 15.09.2000 is considered, this Court finds that the same has been executed by Hanuman Prasad, the transferee or the tenant alone, singularly without bearing any signatures of the transferor namely, Om Prakash Nagori, the owner of the tenanted premises. 20. As such, it cannot be said to be a document executed by both the parties and the same is nothing more than a rent note. Hence, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner about and around the contentious document, branding it to be a lease are per se frivolous and unsustainable in law. In considered opinion of this Court, as the document dated 15.09.2000 is a rent note and not a lease deed, for which, contentions raised by the petitioner are liable to be rejected. However, since the Court below has recorded a finding, the petitioner had raised the questions and learned counsel for the respondents had joined the same, it is deemed appropriate to answer the question posed by the petitioner. 21. Coming to the first argument advanced by Mr. Soni that the agreement in question is for a period of more than a year, for which registration is compulsory; suffice it to observe that no such plea was taken by the petitioner before the Court below. Upon reading of the prayer clause and the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner, duly noticed by the learned Trial Court, it is apparent that the plea regarding registration was not raised by the petitioner. Not only the caption of the application, even the contents thereof, are within the confines of the questions involving payment of stamp duty; even in the prayer clause, reproduced above, the petitioner had implored the document to be remitted to the Collector Stamps for adjudication of appropriate stamp duty. 22. Be that as it may, since it is a pure question of law requiring no addition factual foundation and further because the Trial Court has made a passing remark that the document can be used for collateral purposes, this Court feels it imperative to pronounce upon this question also, while deciding the question involving stamp duty. 23. 22. Be that as it may, since it is a pure question of law requiring no addition factual foundation and further because the Trial Court has made a passing remark that the document can be used for collateral purposes, this Court feels it imperative to pronounce upon this question also, while deciding the question involving stamp duty. 23. In the considered opinion of this Court, the requirement of registration of a document has to be examined on the basis of facts and law obtaining on the date of its execution and identical is the position, when it comes to the payment of stamp duty. The other relevant factor to be reckoned for adjudicating the requirement of registration of a document is; the contents of the document and averments made therein. 24. A simple look at the contentious document unravels that it is a rent deed or purported lease agreement on month to month basis. The mere fact that the parties have paid or accepted the cumulative rent for the period of three years or more, per-se does not change the nature of the document nor can it change the requirement of law. A mere fortuitous fact that the tenant has paid the rent for more than a year, does not render the monthly rent agreement or a lease agreement to be a lease agreement of more than one year, as attempted to, by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 25. The provisions contained in Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act in no ambiguous terms provide that the lease hold rights in relation to an immovable property can be executed only by a registered deed; are not applicable in the present case, as the agreement dated 15.09.2000 executed between the parties is on the month to month basis. 26. True it is that the subject agreement encapsulates an inscription about renewal of the agreement with 10% increase in the rent, but the same does not ip-so-facto render the rent agreement dated 15.09.2000 to be an annual lease or a lease for a period of three years or more. 27. 26. True it is that the subject agreement encapsulates an inscription about renewal of the agreement with 10% increase in the rent, but the same does not ip-so-facto render the rent agreement dated 15.09.2000 to be an annual lease or a lease for a period of three years or more. 27. Coming to the requirement of stamp duty, this Court is firm in its opinion that the stamp duty payable under the old Act of 1899 was payable and not as payable under the provisions of Rajasthan Stamp Act 1998; as the document in question had been executed on 15.09.2000, much before the advent of the Act of 1998. 28. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that the Court below, while rejecting petitioner’s application, has observed that the document in question is being used for collateral purposes, for which, the same can be used. Though from reading of the observation made by the Court below, it is not clear, that for which reason or under which provision the Court below has held that the document in question to be admissible for collateral purposes, however, one can decipher from the discussion made, that the Court below has held the same to be admissible in evidence in view of the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, which postulates that an unregistered document can be used for collateral purposes. 29. Such finding arrived at by the Court below is per se illegal and contrary to the factual and legal matrix involved in the present case. The contentious agreement is the sole edifice, on which, the plaintiff’s case is built, for which, it cannot be said that the agreement in question has been used for collateral purposes. The plaintiff had used the said document, as a sheet anchor to project and prove the relationship of landlord and tenant does exists between the plaintiff and the defendant; such purpose by any reasoning cannot be said to be a collateral purpose. 30. By way of the order impugned dated 06.09.2017, the Court below has held that the appropriate stamp duty had been paid. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out the quantum of the differential of deficit stamp duty, if required to be paid upon such document. 31. 30. By way of the order impugned dated 06.09.2017, the Court below has held that the appropriate stamp duty had been paid. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out the quantum of the differential of deficit stamp duty, if required to be paid upon such document. 31. In absence of such material before the Court and further in absence of any pleadings to this effect, merely by saying that proper stamp duty has not been paid on the document, the document in question cannot be sent for determination of appropriate stamp duty. 32. In view of the discussions foregoing, this Court concludes that the agreement/document dated 15.09.2000 is a simple rent note and not a lease deed; even if for the sake of argument, it is treated to be lease deed, the same is a month to month lease, requiring no registration and hence admissible in evidence. 33. Before parting with the Judgment, as a note of caution this Court deems it imperative to point out that the document dated 15.09.2000, the bone of contention has been executed by none other than the petitioner, Hanuman Prasad, himself. If there is any lacuna or lesser payment of stamp duty, it is the fault of the petitioner and if any additional payment is required to be made, it has to be borne by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner can neither be permitted to capitalise on his own fault nor can he enjoy premium of his own misdeeds. 34. As an up-shot of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition having no substance and force is dismissed.