Proper stamping and registration of agreements purporting to create, declare, assign, limit, or extinguish any right, title, or interest in immovable property is essential as per Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act.

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the revision petitioner/tenant against the order, dated 21.09.2017, passed in R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2016 by the Rent Controller/Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, whereby and whereunder the learned Rent Controller has held that the rental agreement, which wants to be marked on the side of the revision petitioner/tenant, has to be referred to the District Collector under Section 38 of the Indian Stamp Act for proper valuation and payment of stamp duty.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(a) According to the respondent/landlord, he had purchased the dismissed premises and also the nearby premises, where he has been running a travel business and the revision petitioner/tenant has already been informed about the change of ownership. In order to expand the business, the respondent/landlord required that demised premises. When the respondent/landlord had sent a notice demanding vacant possession of the demised premises, the revision petitioner/tenant has sent a reply notice with the false allegation that under unregistered lease agreement, he has given a sum of Rs.12 lakhs as advance to the previous owner and he had spent Rs.6 lakhs for the purpose of improvement of the demised premises.

(b) According to the revision petitioner/tenant, he had entered into an unregistered lease agreement with one A.Rajamony on 03.08.2014 for running a business in the demised premises, as per which the rate of rent was fixed at Rs.7,500/- p.m. and Rs.12 lakhs was given as advance. The revision petitioner/tenant had also spent Rs.6 lakhs for the purpose of improvement in the demised premises. He has been paying rent regularly without any arrears. While so, a notice has been served to him with regard to the change of ownership of the building. He was ready to pay rent through the respondent's/landlord's bank account on 06.01.2016, but the respondent/landlord refused to give bank account number. Though in the rental agreement, the receipt of Rs.12 lakhs was acknowledged by erstwhile owner, with the mala fide intention to evict the petitioner/tenant, the respondent/landlord has filed the eviction petition.

(c) While so, the revision petitioner/tenant has filed a miscellaneous petition seeking to mark the unregistered lease agreement and also the receipts relating to the payment of rent and purchase of materials for the improvement of the demised premises. The Court below, after hearing both sides, has held that for marking the lease document, under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, the revision petitioner/tenant has to pay stamp duty and as the revision petitioner/tenant stated that there is no necessity to pay stamp duty, the Court has to refer the document to the District Collector for proper valuation of stamp duty payable and for payment of the same. For getting opinion of the revision petitioner/tenant, the Court below has adjourned the matter to 03.10.2017. While so, challenging that order, the revision petitioner/tenant has hurriedly come up with this revision petition.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant strenuously argued that the revision petitioner/tenant sought to mark the unregistered lease agreement only for the collateral purpose of establishing the payment of advance amount and not for proving the main purpose of tenancy. The learned Rent Controller has failed to consider the same.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant would further submit that if the Rent Controller decided that the said document needs payment of stamp duty, he ought to have impounded the same and referred it to the Stamp Collector, but the Rent Controller directed the revision petitioner/tenant to pay deficit stamp duty on or before 03.10.2017, which is against law.

5. I have paid my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant and perused the materials available on record.

6. The only question