The main legal point established in the judgment is that the lessee is liable to pay the deficient stamp duty and penalty on an unregistered lease deed, as per Section 29(c) of the Stamp Act, 1899.

JUDGMENT :

Civil Revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, is directed against the order dated 10.12.2018, passed by Judge, Small Cause Courts/I Addl. District Judge, Rishikesh, District Dehradun, in S.C.C. Suit No. 38 of 2015, Punjab Sindh Kshetra Vs Krishan Kumar, whereby the said court had impounded the lease deed and sent the same to the Collector for realization of stamp duty and penalty to be paid by the defendants, as also the order dated 05.04.2019, whereby the application (paper no. 86C) filed by defendant/revisionist for modification of order dated 10.12.2018 has been rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent instituted the said suit against the defendants/revisionist seeking a decree of eviction and for recovery of rent, damages and mesne profit. Indisputably, the respondent is the owner and landlord of the suit property and the revisionist is the tenant on plaintiff’s behalf. Initially, the suit property was let out to the revisionist upto the period of 31st December 2012, thereafter for renewing the tenancy of the revisionist a rent deed between the revisionist and plaintiff/respondent Punjab Sindh Kshetra, Rishikesh through its Manager/Trustee was executed on 16.03.2013. It has been mentioned in the rent deed that the tenancy has expired on 31.12.2012. The respondent agreed to let out the suit property to the revisionist at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month. It was also agreed that besides the rent at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month, the tenant shall also pay house tax, water tax, sewerage charges and service tax etc. which was applicable on the suit property. The aforesaid rent deed was executed w.e.f. 16.03.2013 to 31.12.2016. The same was executed on a stamp paper of Rs.100/-. The rent deed was neither properly stamped nor the same was registered. The plaintiff produced the rend deed in the suit. The defendant moved an application (paper no. 86C), stating therein that the rent deed (paper no. 86C) has been executed for a period of four years as per the provisions contained in Article 35 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act, which stipulates that the stamp duty has to be paid on rent deed. Thus, it was prayed that the rent deed is liable to be impounded under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

3. The application (paper no. 41C) filed by the revisionist was allowed by the trial court vide impugned order dated 10.12.2018. The learned trial court having considered the ratio of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs Vijay Krishan Mishra, (2009) 2 SCC 532, as also the fact that the defendant has not denied the execution of the rent deed directed the Collector Dehradun to impound the rent deed (paper no. 8C); recover the deficient amount of stamp duty and penalty be imposed under Section 29(C) of the Stamp Act upon the defendant and he shall ensure return of the document to the trial court by the next date fixed.

4. After the order dated 10.12.2018, the defendant moved another application (paper no. 86C), stating therein, that the trial court has allowed the application filed by the defendant and impounded the document under Section 33 of the Stamp Act, but has illegally directed the Collector, Dehradun to recover the deficient amount of stamp duty and to impose penalty upon the defendant. Placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Dadu Dayal Mahasabha Vs Sukhdev Arya, 1990 (1) SCC 189, it was contended that under Section 29 of the Stamp Act, the plaintiff, who has produced the rent deed in evidence, is liable to pay the deficient stamp duty along with penalty. Learned trial court having considered the judgment of Dadu Dayal (supra) rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court, as also the judgment of Ashok Kumar Agarwal Vs State of Uttar Pradesh, 2016 SUPREME (All) pg 1732, passed by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held that no interference is called for to interfere in the order dated 10.12.2018 and consequently reject