ORDER :

1. Heard Sri. M. Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Aadesh Varma, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Challenging the propriety of the order dated 10.02.2020 in R.C.A. No. 23 of 2019 on the file of the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, this revision is preferred.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner filed R.C. No. 358 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad with a prayer to evict the respondents from the schedule property bearing No. 17-4-160 comprising of one mulgi, tin shed, courtyard situated at Yakutpura, Hyderabad.

4. During the enquiry, the petitioner got examined PWs. 1 and 2 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-5; whereas the respondent examined RWs. 1 to 4 and marked Exs.R-1 to R-8. The learned Rent Controller on considering the material on record, ordered eviction and to hand over the vacant possession of the premises.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents preferred appeal vide R.C.A. No. 23 of 2019 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad wherein the learned Judge on appraisal of the evidence on record held that the original lease deed dated 01.07.1985/Ex.P-3 was marked subject to objection of the respondents. Whereas, the objection neither recorded nor considered while adjudicating the petition. However, the document is insufficiently stamped as per Schedule IA, Article 31 of the Stamp Act, 1889. As such, it is inadmissible in the evidence. Excluding the document, as there is no other evidence to establish jural relationship between the petitioner and the respondent, allowed the appeal. Thus, this revision under Section 22 of the Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960.

6. While hearing the appeal on the other aspects, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner preliminarily pointed out that when the learned appellate Court opined that the document Ex.P-3 is insufficiently stamped, liable to be impounded should have taken recourse to the procedure contemplated under the Indian Stamp Act, so that the revision petitioner would have got an opportunity to pay the deficit stamp duty and to validate the document. As such proceeding was circumvented, the foundational document remained unconsidered and it resulted in serious prejudice to his case.

7. In this regard, relied on an authority in Chilakuri Gangulappa vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the insufficiently stamped agreement of sale which remained un-impounded during the proceedings before the trial Court, the appellate Court and the High Court observed that the trial Court should have examined whether the instrument is insufficiently stamped, if so, whether the petitioner would remit the deficient portion of the stamp duty together with a penalty amounting to ten times the deficiency and if remits the said amount the court has to proceed with the trial after admitting the document in evidence. In case, the petitioner is unwilling to remit the amount, the Court has to forward the original of the document to the Collector for the purpose of adjudicating on the question of deficiency of the stamp duty. As these proceedings were not adopted, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had set-aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the trial Court, with a direction to determine the question of insufficiency of stamp duty and to take up the consequential proceedings.

8. The revision petitioner further submitted that the insufficiency of stamp duty observed by the appellate Court in the above judgment was acceptable and he is ready to take steps for revalidation of the document. Thus, prayed for remanding the matter to the Court concerned for appropriate action and to adjudicate the matter afresh basing on the document.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent fairly accepted that the deficit stamp duty could have been collected by impounding the document and the matter could h