JUDGMENT 1. Aggrieved by the orders dtd. 6/2/2017 passed in I.A.No.497 of 2016 in O.S.No. 151 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tiruvuru, (in short 'the court below') the present revision is filed. 2. The petitioner herein is the defendant; respondent herein is the plaintiff before the court below. 3. The respondent/ plaintiff has been filed a suit in O.S.No. 151 of 2014 against petitioner/ respondent to vacant the plaint schedule property. In the said suit the impugned application has been filed under order XV-A, rule (i), (ii) of CPC, to direct the petitioner/ defendant to deposit the arrears of rent of Rs.2, 16, 000.00 till the month of May-2016 and in his default in doing so prayed to the court to strike of defence of petitioner/ defendant in the suit. The court below holding that the unregistered lease document/ lease agreement dtd. 1/9/2008 is not liable to be marked as an Exhibit on behalf of the respondent/ defendant and returned to the party on proper identification. Assailing the same the present revision came to be filed. 4. Heard Mr. S. Ramachandra Prasad, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Venkateswarlu Chakkilam, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the court below failed to see that the nature and nomenclature of the Rental Agreement dtd. 1/9/2008 does not fit into the definition of the lease under Sec. 105 of Transfer of Property Act and as such, the observation of the court below while refusing to mark the same, that it requires registration is totally unjust and unsustainable. It is further contended that the court below failed see that even as per Amendment Act 4 of 99 to the Sec. 17(d) of the Registration Act, 1908, the lease deed is a compulsory registerable document if the period under the lease exceeds one year. It ought to have seen that no period is mentioned in the document in question. This has resulted in miscarriage of justice; hence the petitioner constrained to file this revision. 6. It ought to have seen that no period is mentioned in the document in question. This has resulted in miscarriage of justice; hence the petitioner constrained to file this revision. 6. Whereas learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the petitioner had taken the lease of the vacant on lease and executed lease agreement on 1/9/2008, wherein the respondent pleaded about the giving of the vacant land on lease and the quantum of rent is Rs.1.00 and it was executed between the parties to the suit, which was suppressed by the respondent/ plaintiff. It is further contended that the respondent/ plaintiff had claimed about the arrears to an extent of Rs.1, 23, 000.00 as per notice dtd. 29/5/2013, had deliberately given up the suit of the arrears and the respondent/ plaintiff is stopped from claiming the arrears in future. The petitioner/ defendant had categorically mentioned about the details of the amount deposited in the bank and since the respondent/ plaintiff had refused to receive the admitted rents, the suit on the basis of default is not maintainable. Hence there are no valid reasons to allow the revision and same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Perused the record. 8. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner placed on record the decision of the learned Division Bench of this Court in "Kothapalli Sreeramulu and Co., Jogannapalem, rep., by Managing Partner and Others v. Krishna Gur and Khandasari Sugar, Jogannapalem", 2003(3) ALT 360 (D.B) wherein it was held as follows: "32. In the instant case, the period of lease agreed between the parties under Ex.A-3 is for one cane crushing season of 1977-78. The total period of lease comes to nine months and five days. It is not a lease from year to year nor for a period exceeding one year. It is further specified that the lessee shall pay a rent of Rs.1, 20, 000.00 on or before 31/1/1978, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest at 18% p.a., from 1/2/1978 till the date of payment. Thus, it is a rent payable at one time. There was absolutely no indication to show that the lease period exceeds one year nor was there any agreement for payment of yearly rent. Thus, it is a rent payable at one time. There was absolutely no indication to show that the lease period exceeds one year nor was there any agreement for payment of yearly rent. In the circumstances, Ex.A-3 is not covered by either para-1 of Sec. 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 or Sec. 17(1) (d) of the Registration Act, 1908 and therefore, the same does not require registration. Consequently, it is beyond the bar imposed under Sec. 49 of the Registration Act and there cannot be any objection as to its admissibility in evidence on the ground of want of registration". Further, he also relied on a decision of this Court in "Mirza Anwar Baig v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, rep., by its Authorized Officer, Mr. B.R.Meghwal and Others", 2016(4) ALT 140 (D.B) wherein the learned Division Bench of this Court held as follows: "36.........Sec. 107 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that 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 instrument' and all other leases of immovable property may be made either by a registered instrument or by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession. Hence, if any of the appellants claim that they are entitled to possession of a secured asset for any term exceeding one year from the date of the lease made in his favour, he has to produce proof of execution of a registered instrument in his favour by the lessor. Where he does not produce proof of execution of a registered instrument in his favour and instead relies on an unregistered instrument or oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate, as the case may be, will have to come to the conclusion that he is not entitled to the possession of the secured asset for more than a year from the date of instrument or from the date of delivery of possession in his favour by the landlord". 9. As could be seen from the proviso of Sec. 107 of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which reproduced hereunder: "107. 9. As could be seen from the proviso of Sec. 107 of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which reproduced hereunder: "107. Leases 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 instrument. (All other leases of immovable property may be made either by a registered instrument or by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession). 10. Therefore, as per Sec. 107 of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a lease can be made only a by a registered document for any term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent. the learned Division Bench of this Court followed the same principles in the decisions cited supra. Therefore, oral lease of immovable property for a term not exceeding one year accompanied by delivery of possession and the terms agreed between the parties reduced into writing subsequently. Therefore such a memorandum of past transaction of oral lease, it is not compulsorily registrable as per ratio laid down in "Kothapalli Sreeramulu's case (cited -1 supra). 11. In the instant case, the petitioner/ defendant not admitting that said document is lease deed, but he relies said document for the proof of quantum of rent agreed by both parties. The court below relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Harshad Govardhan Sondagar v. International Assets Reconstruction Company Limited and Others", 2015(2) ALT (Crl) 306 (SC) wherein it was held that the petitioner therein cannot claim any tenancy, in the absence of valid registered lease deed in respect of the property in question, therefore do not find any merit in the said writ petition. The document is said to be rent agreement dtd. 1/9/2008 executed by the respondent/ plaintiff on Non-Judicial Stamp. The court below understands that the period of lease is more than one year from the date of instrument in favour of the respondent executed by landlord. Therefore following the decision cited supra- 3, it requires registration and that the same is not liable to be marked. 12. As per the decision cites supra-1, there was no indication to show that the lease period exceeds one year nor was there any agreement for payment of yearly rent. Therefore following the decision cited supra- 3, it requires registration and that the same is not liable to be marked. 12. As per the decision cites supra-1, there was no indication to show that the lease period exceeds one year nor was there any agreement for payment of yearly rent. Therefore Sec. 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 or Sec. 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908, does not require registration and there cannot be any objection as to its admissibility in evidence on the ground of want of registration. 13. In view of the aforementioned scenario, this Court warrants interference of the impugned order of the court below. Therefore this Court is inclined to allow the C.R.P, while setting aside the impugned order dtd. 6/2/2017. Since the suit of the year 2014, which is oldest matter, the court below is directed to proceed with the trial and dispose of the same in accordance with law at the earliest, preferably within six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that both the parties to the suit shall co-operate with the court below for disposal of the suit within time frame. 14. With the above direction, the C.R.P is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.