Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 4011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.V. MURALIDARAN, J.
M. Jayaramaiah – Petitioner
Vs.
L. Lakkappa – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.2741 of 2012, M.P.No.1 of 2012
Decided On : 07-09-2017
For the Petitioner: Mrs. Auxilia Peter
For the Respondent: Mr. N. Anand Venkatesh, For M/s. V. Nicholas
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 151 - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Sections 33 and 35 - Registration Act, 1908 - Section 49 - Tenancy agreement - Possession - Suit for recovery of amount - Plaintiff in suit has filed suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.8.00 lakhs being caution deposit advance amount with interest at rate of 12% per annum from date of suit till date of realisation and for costs - Plaintiff is tenant and defendant is landlord - Pending suit petitioner herein has filed I.A.No. of seeking to seeking to direct respondent to pay stamp duty penalty to Registration department - Petitioner alleged that respondent had paid only an advance amount and petitioner filed his written statement with counter-claim for arrears of rent upto till surrendering of vacant possession - According to petitioner, respondent has not paid sum of Rs.8.00 lakhs as advance and also it is false to say that petitioner had signed rental agreement dated - Alleged rental agreement is not binding on petitioner and same is not a registered agreement - Since period fixed in alleged agreement was 12 months, it ought to have been registered - Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that trial Court failed to note that respondent is defaulter in payment of monthly rent and a sum due from him – Held, Court, set aside order of trial Court in so far as portion of order, which permitted respondent to pay stamp duty - As far as receiving of document is concerned this Court confirmed finding of trial Court and made it clear that it is open to parties to raise their respective pleas about admissibility of document - Against order made in C.R.P.No petitioner has not preferred any further appeal - Thereafter, in petitioner has filed I.A.No. seeking to direct respondent to pay stamp duty penalty to Registration Department - Real dispute between parties is whether sum of Rs.8.00 lakhs was paid by respondent as rental advance and if so whether respondent is entitled to recover same from petitioner - Court in agreement with view taken by trial Court for reason that there is no dispute regarding rights under tenancy agreement and terms and conditions stipulated in rental agreement are not under dispute between the parties - Trial Court arrived at stamp duty payable to document based on monthly rent payable to petitioner and finally arrived at duty and on such payment document is admissible in evidence - Said finding of trial Court is acceptable and this Court dont want to take a different view - Civil Revision Petition is dismissed
This revision is directed against the order dated 17.07.2012 made in I.A.No.130 of 2012 in O.S.No.121 of 2010 on the file of the Sub-Court, Hosur, dismissing the application filed under Section 151 CPC read with Sections 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 seeking to direct the respondent to pay the stamp duty penalty to the Registration department. The petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit.
2. The respondent, who is the plaintiff in the suit, has filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.8.00 lakhs being the caution deposit advance amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation and for costs. The plaintiff is the tenant and the defendant is the landlord. Pending suit, the petitioner herein has filed I.A.No.130 of 2012 seeking to seeking to direct the respondent to pay the stamp duty penalty to the Registration department.
3. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner alleged that the respondent had paid only an advance amount of Rs.50,000/- and the petitioner filed his written statement with counter-claim for arrears of rent upto 2002 till surrendering of vacant possession. According to the petitioner, the respondent has not paid the sum of Rs.8.00 lakhs as advance and also it is false to say that the petitioner had signed the rental agreement dated 14.05.1997. The alleged rental agreement is not binding on the petitioner and the same is not a registered agreement. Since the period fixed in the alleged agreement was 12 months, it ought to have been registered. Therefore, the rental agreement cannot be marked as exhibit in the suit. Hence, the petitioner has filed the application seeking to direct the respondent to pay the stamp duty penalty to the Registration department.
4. The respondent has filed the counter stating that stamp duty penalty has already been paid and that the rental agreement is deemed to have been sufficiently stamped and the same can be received for collateral purpose. The rental agreement need not be registered since the period mentioned was from 01.06.1997 to 31.05.1998.
5. Upon consideration of the rival submissions, the trial Court dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present revision.
6. I heard Mrs. Auxilia Peter, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Anand Venkatesh for M/s. V. Nicholas, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the entire records.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court failed to note that the respondent is defaulter in payment of monthly rent and a sum of Rs.3,89,100/- due from him. The learned counsel submitted that the respondent has kept the premises in question under lock and key without paying arrears of rent. The earlier order of the trial Court directing the respondent to pay stamp duty penalty of Rs.24,200/- is incorrect and the trial Court ought to have seen that the respondent should pay stamp duty penalty of Rs.5,27,600/-. The learned counsel would submit that the trial Court erred in holding that for collateral purpose, the rental agreement can be marked as an exhibit despite the plea of forgery alleged.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the order under revision is a well considered one and the same need not be interfered with.
9. The plaint in the present suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.8.00 lakhs due to him towards rental advance was originally presented before the Sub-Court, Hosur and the same was taken on file as O.S.No.78 of 1999. Later, on the point of jurisdiction, the suit in O.S.No.78 of 1999 was transferred to the file District Court, Krishnagiri and numbered as O.S.No.60 of 2004 and was pending before the Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri. Thereafter, on the enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction, the suit in O.S.No.60 of 2004 was again transferred to the file of Sub-Court, Hosur and numbered as O.S.No.121 of 2010.
