JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs : “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction:- (i) quash the impugned order dated 10.02.2023 (Annex.-5) passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Banswara in Original Rent Application No.01/2022; and (ii) the application dated 25.11.2022 filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs in toto & the document rent note dated 22.05.1992 tendered in evidence by the respondent may be declared as inadmissible in evidence & same be ordered to be kept in part-D; and (iii) any other appropriate relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case be granted in favour of the petitioner; and (iv) Cost of the writ petition kindly ordered to be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the respondent filed an eviction case under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 before the learned Rent Tribunal, Baswara against the petitioner, reply whereto was filed by the petitioner. 2.1. The said eviction case was posted for evidence of the respondent, whereupon, the petitioner raised an objection regarding the admissibility of the rent note dated 22.05.1992 and the petitioner filed an application under Sections 17 & 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1908’) before the learned Rent Tribunal, stating therein that the rent note as produced by the respondent, for a period of 5 years and the same was not registered; therefore, the same cannot be allowed to be marked as exhibit. 2.2. The learned Rent Tribunal vide order dated 10.02.2023, dismissed the said application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a lease of immovable property from year to year or any term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent, can be made only by a registered instrument. In the present case, the rent note was for a period of 5 years and therefore it cannot marked as exhibit to be admissible in evidence. 3.1. In the present case, the rent note was for a period of 5 years and therefore it cannot marked as exhibit to be admissible in evidence. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that as per Sections 17 & 49 of the Act of 1908, the lease registration is compulsory, and thus, in absence of registration, as in the present case, the lease deed/rent note, as relied by the respondent, was not at all admissible. 3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the learned Rent Tribunal has erred in observing that the petitioner has admitted about the existence and conditions of the said rent note, because the petitioner has neither admitted the existence of said rent note nor admitted any of its conditions, and therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Tribunal is not justified in law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the rent note was executed between the petitioner and respondent on 22.05.1992, and thus, there was no requirement of registration thereof, and thus, the impugned order cannot be said to be erroneous. 4.1. It was further submitted that the petitioner himself admitted in his written statement regarding the said rent note and no objection was taken therein. It was also submitted that Section 17 of the Act of 1908 debars a document to be read as evidence when it is not registered, but Section 49 of the Act of 1908 permits that the said document to be read as evidence for collateral purposes. 4.2. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shibani Basu Vs. Sandip Ray (Civil Appeal No. 10053 of 2010, decided on 26.11.2010) and; the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Kiran S. Purohit Vs. Rent Tribunal, Jaipur & Anr. (S.B.C.W.P. No. 756/2010, decided on 10.03.2010). Relevant portion of the judgment rendered in Shibani Basu (Supra) is reproduced as hereunder:- “These facts were important and held the key to the determination of the question whether the notice had validly terminated the tenancy. The High Court had in the first order passed by it correctly held the notice of termination of tenancy to be legally valid. Relevant portion of the judgment rendered in Shibani Basu (Supra) is reproduced as hereunder:- “These facts were important and held the key to the determination of the question whether the notice had validly terminated the tenancy. The High Court had in the first order passed by it correctly held the notice of termination of tenancy to be legally valid. After the matter was remanded back to it to consider the effect of non-registration of the rent note/agreement of tenancy it has taken a view that has not appealed to us. It is true that the non-registration of the rent note does not debar the use of a document that is compulsorily registerable for collateral purposes but that aspect would in the instant case pale into insignificance keeping in view the state of pleadings on the question of month of tenancy and the legal implications thereof”. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 6. This Court observes that the respondent filed the aforementioned eviction case before the learned Rent Tribunal, during pendency whereof, the petitioner raised the objection regarding admissibility of the rent note dated 22.05.1992 and filed an application under Sections 17 & 49 of the Act of 1908; however, the learned Rent Tribunal vide the impugned order dated 10.02.2023, rejected the said application. 7. This Court further observes that the petitioner himself in his written statement (in para nos.9 & 10) admitted the tenancy between the petitioner and the respondent in the year 1992, which was further continued, and also mentioned the details of the payment of the rent towards such tenancy. This Court also observes that the learned Rent Tribunal observed in the impugned order that as per Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if the facts are admitted, then the same need not be proved. 8. This Court further observes that the petitioner himself in his written statement and affidavit admitted the rent note dated 22.05.1992 and even did not take any objection regarding the same. 9. At this juncture, this Court considers it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment rendered in the case of Kiran S. Purohit (Supra) as hereunder : “Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 9. At this juncture, this Court considers it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment rendered in the case of Kiran S. Purohit (Supra) as hereunder : “Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. Although Section 17 of the Registration Act debars a document to be read in evidence in case it is not duly registered, but Section 49 of the Act permits that the said document can be read for collateral purposes. Thus, the learned Tribunal is free to read the said lease agreement for collateral purposes. Moreover and most importantly, since the petitioner had already admitted the fact that he is the tenant of Harish Ahalwat, the lease agreement looses much of importance.....” 10. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and in view of the aforementioned precedent law and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition. 11. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.