Rajes Kumar, J.
1. The respondent has filed a suit for eviction on the ground that as per agreement the property in dispute has been let out for the period of five years i.e. on 28.10.1993 which has been expired on 28.10.1998. Before the trial court the petitioner pleaded that the signature has been obtained on a plain stamp paper. However, the signature on the stamp paper and the execution of the agreement have not been denied. The trial court has recorded a categorical finding in this regard and further held that from perusal of the agreement it does not appear that the signature has been obtained on a plain stamp paper but the tenant has put the signature on all the stamp papers. This finding of the trial court is finding of fact.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the agreement was for five years, therefore, in view of Section 17 of the Transfer of Property Act, the agreement should be registered and agreement cannot be taken as an admissible evidence. It is true that under Section 17 of the Transfer of Property Act, the agreement which is beyond five years should be registered but when in a present case, execution of the agreement has not been disputed and the signature on the agreement has been admitted. The trial court has not erred in relying upon the said agreement. Since the agreement was for the period of five years on the date on 28.10.1993 which expired on 28.10.1998, therefore, the trial court has rightly passed the order of eviction and directing the revisionist to give the possession of the property in dispute and pay arrears of rent.
2. In the end, learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that some reasonable time be allowed to vacate the premises and to pay the arrears of rent.
3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, three months is allowed to the revisionist to vacate the premises and to pay arrears of rent.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
