ORDER : 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendant’) challenging the order dated 03.07.2019 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.1, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur, (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court”) whereby the objection raised by the defendant has been rejected and respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiff’) has been permitted to exhibit in evidence the certified copy of the rent note. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit against the defendant for eviction and recovery of rent. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff sought to exhibit a certified copy of the rent note in evidence, which was objected to by the defendant. The said objection of the defendant has been rejected by the Trial Court vide its order dated 3.7.2019 permitting the plaintiff to exhibit the certified copy of the rent note in evidence. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the rent note was executed for five years and for the lease deed / rent note for more than a year, registration is a compulsory requirement in terms of Section 17 and 49 of the Registration Act. He further submits that the rent note was not executed on proper stamp paper, as such the same was inadmissible in evidence in terms of Section 33 and 35 of the Stamp Act. However, the learned Trial Court has utterly failed to consider this aspect of the matter and on this count, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 4. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the following judgments: (I) Avinash Kumar Chauhan Versus Vijay Krishna Mishra reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 532 (II) Sanjeev Bhardwaj Versus Yogeshwar Swaroop Bhatnagar (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15760/2015) & another connected matter; decided on 4.9.2019. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the defendant, in his written statement, admitted the execution of the said rent note. The rent note was executed with the consent of both the parties, therefore, it was not required to be registered nor properly stamped and it could be taken on record for collateral purposes. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 7. The rent note was executed with the consent of both the parties, therefore, it was not required to be registered nor properly stamped and it could be taken on record for collateral purposes. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 7. The Trial Court while rejecting the objection of the defendant and permitting the plaintiff to exhibit the certified copy of the rent note in evidence, relied on the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kiran S. Purohit Versus Rent Tribunal, Jaipur & Anr. reported in 2010 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1386, where it was held that according to Section 17 of Registration Act, a document which is neither properly registered nor stamped cannot be rendered admissible in evidence, but the same can be used for collateral purpose. The Trial Court also observed that the defendant in his written statement specifically admitted the execution of the rent note dated 1.3.2011, which was executed by both the parties. He further admitted to have taken the tenanted premises on rent. In this view of the matter, the Trial Court observed that the certified copy of the rent note obtained under Right to Information Act could be read in evidence and for collateral purposes. 8. The judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjeev Bhardwaj (supra) does not apply to the facts of the instant case for the reason the said case arose out of a suit for specific performance, whereas in the present case, suit was filed for eviction and recovery of rent. 9. The judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Avinash Kumar Chauhan (supra) also does not apply to the facts of the instant case for the reason the said case related to sale deed, which is not the situation here in this case. 10. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the Trial Court in its impugned order. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. 11. For the aforesaid reason, the writ petition, being devoid of merits, fails and the same is hereby dismissed. 12. Consequently, the stay order dated 6.11.2019 is vacated and thestay application is dismissed.