Being aggrieved by the docket order dated 15-06-2011, passed in R.C.C. No.8 of 2007 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

2. The Petitioners herein are the Respondents and Respondents herein are the Petitioners in the R.C.C. No.8 of 2007.For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the lower Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows : The first respondent herein is the landlord and the petitioners herein are the tenants of the schedule property. The first respondent herein filed R.C.C. No.8 of 2007 seeking to evict the petitioners on the ground that they committed default in paying the rents. While so, the first respondent herein died and after his death, respondents Nos.2 to 6 are brought on record as his legal representatives vide orders in I.A. No.14 of 2008, dated 16-09-2008. Subsequently, the petitioners herein filed I.A. No.11 of 2011 seeking to decide whether lease agreement dated 26-09-2001 requires compulsory registration with deficit stamp duty and also permit them to receive the said document on their behalf. The learned Judge took into consideration the endorsement made on behalf of the respondents that there was no objection to receive the same, allowed the I.A. No.11 of 2001 on 13-04-2011. Thereafter the petitioners filed I.A. No.19 of 2011 to recall RW-1 to mark the lease agreement dated 26-09-2001. During the pendency of I.A. No.19 of 2011, the learned judge passed docket order in R.C.C. No.8 of 2007 on 15-06-2011 declaring that the document in question dated 26-09-2001 cannot be marked in evidence. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

5. A document which is compulsorily registrable one and requires stamp duty when sought to be marked and when an application has been filed to determine whether it can be received in evidence or not, the Court has to necessarily pass orders. In this case, the petitioners have filed an agreement dated 26-09-2001. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the document is only an agreement with an understanding to obtain a leased deed in future it does not require registration. The lower Court observed as follows in the impugned order :

“4. When the nature of document has to be analysed with reference to stamp duty or registration, the Court has to look into the recitals of the documents. Therefore, in order to decide whether the document dated 26-09-2001 is “Lease Deed or Agreement”, it is necessary to examine the relevant portion of the document which are as under :-

The nomenclature of the deed is “Lease deed” for a period of 5 years. Of course, it is not nomenclature, but the recitals in the document, which have to be considered for deciding stamp duty and necessity of registration. In the said document, the 1st petitioner is shown as 1st party (Lessor) and the respondents are shown as 2nd party (Lessee). In the 2nd para, it is mentioned that the property described in 3rd para schedule is “Leased out” to the 2nd party for running a hotel in the name of “New Sreerama Parlour”. In the 1st clause, the rent is noted as Rs.6,000/-payable by 2nd party to the 1st party and the building has to be handed over by the 1st party to the 2nd party by 01-10-2001. The 2nd party has to pay the electricity charges whereas, the 1st party has to pay the municipal taxes.

In the 3rd clause, it is noted that Rs.1,00,000/- is deposited by the 2nd party to the 1st party and obtained a receipt thereof which has to be repayable to the 2nd party by the 1st party at the time of vacation of the schedule premises by the 2nd party and shall obtain a receipt.

The 4th clause shows the lease agreement is from 01-10-2001 to 30-09-2006 for a period of 5 years and even after 5 years, if the 2