JUDGMENT : SANGEET LODHA, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 1.12.2018 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bikaner in Rent Case No. 214/15, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner questioning the admissibility of the rent note (Ex.1) produced by the respondent-landlord in evidence, has been dismissed. 2. The respondent-landlord filed a petition under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short ‘the Act’), seeking eviction of the petitioner from a residential premises on the ground of default in payment of rent, nuisance, denial of title and reasonable and bona-fide necessity. The petition is being contested by the petitioner by filing a reply thereto. The respondent had filed his own affidavit along with the reply to the petition, wherein the rent note produced on record was exhibited as Ex.1. The evidence of the parties stand concluded and at this stage, the petitioner preferred an application questioning the admissibility of rent note produced in evidence stating that it has been executed on the stamp of Rs. 100 wherein the period of tenancy has not been specified and thus, the rent note produced being insufficiently stamped and not registered is not admissible in evidence. 3. The application has been rejected by the Rent Tribunal observing that the rent note produced has already been exhibited in evidence and the admissibility thereof, was not questioned by the petitioner at the appropriate stage. The Rent Tribunal observed that the admissibility of the rent note (Ex.1) in evidence was not questioned by the petitioner herein, at the time of cross-examination of the respondent and no question was put to the respondent in respect of the rent note during cross-examination. The Rent Tribunal opined that the petitioner cannot be permitted to question the admissibility of the document at this belated stage when it already stand exhibited in evidence. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the objection regarding the admissibility of insufficiently stamped document in evidence is permissible to be raised at any stage of the proceedings. That apart, the document which is required to be registered cannot be permitted to be admitted in evidence and thus, the Rent Tribunal has seriously erred in holding that it is not permissible to question the admissibility of the document at the belated stage when the same already stands exhibited in evidence. That apart, the document which is required to be registered cannot be permitted to be admitted in evidence and thus, the Rent Tribunal has seriously erred in holding that it is not permissible to question the admissibility of the document at the belated stage when the same already stands exhibited in evidence. Relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple and Another, 2003 AIR (SC) 4548, learned counsel submitted that the document produced itself being not admissible in evidence, the admissibility thereof is permitted to be questioned at any stage of the proceedings. 5. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the application filed by the petitioner was only a tactics adopted for delaying the proceedings in the petition. Learned counsel submitted that the execution of the rent note is not even disputed by the petitioner in the reply to the petition filed. That apart, nothing prevented him from questioning the admissibility thereof in evidence at the time of cross-examination of the respondent. Learned counsel submitted that the admissibility of the document already admitted and exhibited in evidence cannot be permitted to be questioned at this stage and thus, the Rent Tribunal has committed no error in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 7. Indisputably, an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the objection as to admissibility of the document was not taken by the petitioner at the appropriate stage i.e. when the affidavit was filed by the respondent and it was exhibited in evidence or at the time of cross examination of the respondent before the Tribunal. 8. A perusal of the rent note which is already admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit reveals that it does not specify the period of tenancy which is disclosed to be a month to month tenancy and therefore, the question of drawing the presumption that it is a tenancy for year to year or for a period beyond one year, does not arise. To the contrary, in absence of any period specified, the tenancy has to be treated for a period less than a year. To the contrary, in absence of any period specified, the tenancy has to be treated for a period less than a year. Thus, the rent note exhibited in evidence, being not of tenancy from year to year or for any term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent, was not required to be compulsorily registered. Regarding insufficiency of the stamp, suffice it to say that it was a curable defect inasmuch as, had there been an objection, the petitioner could have been permitted to cover the insufficiency of the stamp, if any. 9. In Arulmigu Viswesaraswami's case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically observed that the crucial test is whether an objection, if taken at the appropriate point of time, would have enable the party tendering the evidence to cure the defect and resort to such mode of proof as would be regular. The court observed that in such cases, the objection raised shall be treated to be towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular and insufficient and if the objection is not taken before the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that should not have been laid in evidence or that mode adopted for proving the document is irregular, cannot be allowed to be raised subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit. 10. In this view of the matter, the objection raised regarding the insufficiency of the stamp, if any, being not an objection related to the admissibility of the document as such, the Rent Tribunal has committed no error in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner. 11. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.