HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, K. Babu, JJ
SAIDALI HAJI – Appellant
Versus
HASSAN YASER ARAFTH – Respondent
OP (RC)/205/2017
Stamping - Rent Control - Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965: Sections 33, 34, 37, 39, 41 - The court emphasized that insufficiently stamped instruments must be impounded, clarifying that penalties can only be applied if the documents are submitted as evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to set aside an order of the Rent Control Court that impounded a rent agreement for insufficient stamping. The petitioner also filed several applications related to reopening evidence and recalling a witness.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the Rent Control Court's order impounding the instrument was legally sustainable, but the imposition of a penalty was not permitted when the instrument was not presented as evidence.
Issues: Whether the Rent Control Court's order to impound an insufficiently stamped document and impose a penalty was legally valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that while impounding an insufficiently stamped instrument is required under Section 33, penalties can only be imposed when an insufficiently stamped instrument is presented for admission into evidence.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the Rent Control Court and directed it to reconsider the application regarding the impounding of the document.
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioner has filed R.C.P.No.49 of 2014 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Parappanangadi, under Section 5(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, seeking fixation of fair rent of the petition scheduled building occupied by the respondent herein. The petitioner has filed this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order to set aside Ext.P6 order dated 18.11.2017 of the Rent Control Court, Parapppanangadi in I.A.No.1834 of 2017 in R.C.P.No.49 of 2014. I.A.No.1834 of 2017 (Ext.P5) is an application filed by the landlord seeking an order to receive certain documents in evidence. Along with that application the landlord has also filed I.A.No.1832 of 2017 (Ext.P3) seeking an order to re-open the evidence in R.C.P.No.49 of 2014 and I.A.No.1833 of 2017 (Ext.P4) seeking an order to recall PW1.
2. The petitioner has also sought for an order directing the Rent Control Court to allow Exts.P3, P4 and P5 applications and also to stay all further proceedings in R.C.P.No.49 of 2014, pending disposal of this original petition.
3. On 07.12.2017, when this original petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter and issued notice by speed post to the respondent. This Court granted an interim stay of all further proceedings in R.C.P.No.49 of 2014 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Parappanangadi, for a period of two weeks. The said interim order was not extended thereafter. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord and also the learned counsel for the respondent-tenant.
5. The issue that arises for consideration in this original petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P6 order dated 18.11.2017 of the Rent Control Court, Parappanangadi, in I.A. No.1834 of 2017 in R.C.P.No.49 of 2014 invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article
227 of the Constitution of India.
6. Section 33 of the Kerala Stamp Act deals with examination and impounding of instruments. As per sub-section (1) of Section 33 , every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, and every person in charge of a public office, except an officer of Police, before whom any instrument, chargeable in his opinion, with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, shall, if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped, impound the same.
7. Section 34 of the Act provides that, instrument not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence, etc. As per Section 34 , no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped.
8. Section 37 of the Act provides how instruments impounded are dealt with. As per sub-section (1) of Section 37 , when the person impounding an instrument under Section 33 has by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence and admits such instrument in evidence or when he is a registering officer to register such instrument upon payment of a penalty as provided by Section 34 or of duty as provided by Section 36, he shall send to the Collector an authenticated copy of such instrument, together with a certificate in writing, stating the amount of duty and penalty levied in respect thereof, and shall send such amount to the Collector or to such person as he may appoint in this behalf. As per sub-section (2) of Section 37 , in every other case, the person so impounding an instrument shall send it in original to the Collector.
9. Section 39 of the Act deals with Collector's power to stamp instruments impounded. Section 39 of the Act reads thus;
“39. Collector's power to stamp instruments impounded.- (1) When the Collector impounds any instrument under Section 33 , or receives any instrument sent
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.