IMPORTANT POINTS:
The rent control court was bound to impound the documents and the same is justified under law; but imposition of penalty cannot be justified, when the petitioner did not want to admit them in evidence. The court below is justified in rejecting the prayer for return of the lease deeds when the court was bound to impound the lease deeds under Section 33 of the Act-The court below imposed penalty @ Rs.1,60,130/-, is illegal and unsustainable.

Harilal, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash Ext.P3 order passed by the Rent Control Court, Chittoor under Section 33 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'] and the order passed by the District Collector, Palakkad in case reference No.G-12023/2016 under Section 39(1) (b) of the Act and Exts.P4 and P6 orders passed by the District Registrar, Palakkad thereunder.

2. The petitioner is the landlord, who filed R.C.P.No.12/2012 before the Rent Control Court, Chittur. The aforesaid RCP was filed seeking fixation of fair rent of the petition schedule building under Section 5(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. During the said proceedings, he has produced 8 lease deeds executed in his favour by other tenants in respect of his 8 buildings to prove the prevailing rent of the similarly situated buildings. But, these lease deeds are insufficiently stamped deeds, as per the Act. Even though the aforesaid 8 lease deeds were produced to be admitted in evidence, subsequently, the petitioner withdrew the said prayer and filed an application to return the same. Then the Rent Control Court rejected the said prayer, passed Ext.P3 order impounding the lease deeds, and imposing penalty under Section 33 and 34 of the Act and directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1,60,130/- as penalty. The Rent Control Court imposed penalty for payment of a sum, equal to ten times of such duty, in addition to the deficient portion of the stamp. But the petitioner did not deposit the said penalty. So, the Rent Control Court sent Ext.P3 order along with the aforesaid eight documents to the District Collector, for realising the stamp duty and penalty. Thereafter, the District Collector passed an order in case reference No.G12023/2016 directing the District Registrar to recover a sum of Rs.1,60,130/-, the penalty imposed by the Rent Control Court, from the petitioner. Then the District Registrar sent Ext.P6 letter to the petitioner directing him to deposit the said penalty and informing the coercive steps to be taken against him, in case of failure. This writ petition has been filed challenging the legality and correctness of Ext.P3 order passed by the rent control court, the order passed by the District Collector in case reference No.G12023/2016 and Exts. P4 and P6 orders passed by the District Registrar thereunder.

3. Heard Sri.U.Balagangadharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and the learned Government Pleader.

4. Firstly, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner advanced arguments canvassing the point that the Rent Control Court went wrong by passing a composite order impounding the insufficiently stamped instruments and imposing penalty thereon, when the instruments were not sought to be admitted in evidence. Though an order impounding the rent deeds was passed and directed to pay penalty, the petitioner did not pay the said penalty, because the petitioner himself had already abandoned his intention to get the rent deeds admitted in evidence. Moreover, he has filed an application to return the rent deeds. Therefore, the Rent Control Court could not have passed an order impounding the rent deeds or imposing penalty, when the documents were not sought to be admitted in evidence. The learned counsel contends that, Ext.P3 composite order impounding the rent deeds and imposing penalty, passed by the Rent Control Court is illegal and unsustainable. Secondly, the District Collector went wrong by directing the District Registrar to recover the penalty imposed by the Rent Control Court, without forming his own independent opinion, as contemplated under Section 39(1)(b) of the Act. The District Collector ought to have exercised his power independently, under Section 39(1)(b) of the Act, untrammeled by the amount of penalty imposed by the Rent Control Court under Section 34(a) of the Act. Thirdly, it is cont