The circumstances under which an unregistered lease deed, which is required to be registered, can be admitted as evidence to depict the 'nature and character of possession : Supreme Court Clarifies
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of M/S Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited v. Amit Chand Mitra & Anr, clarified the interpretation of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. The court held that an unregistered lease deed, which is otherwise compulsorily registrable, can be admitted as evidence to demonstrate the 'nature and character of possession' only when it is not the main term of the lease and is not the primary dispute before the court.
In this case, a landlady and tenant entered into an unregistered tenancy agreement for a property, and when the lease was not renewed after five years, the landlady sought possession. The tenant argued that the unregistered lease agreement was not admissible as evidence, making the suit not maintainable.
The Supreme Court observed that Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, prohibits the use of unregistered documents as evidence unless they fall under certain exceptions. The court emphasized that the nature and character of possession can be considered a collateral purpose only when it is not the main term of the lease and not the primary dispute.
In the current matter, the primary issue was the nature of possession, and the court concluded that the unregistered document could be considered for collateral purposes in this context.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal and emphasizing the limited admissibility of unregistered documents in specific circumstances.