A lease deed for three years must be registered and sufficiently stamped to be admissible in evidence, including for collateral purposes.

ORDER

The defendant, aggrieved by the order of the trial Court in I.A.No.5 of 2025, directing the lease agreement dated 01.01.2005 to be impounded, is the revision petitioner.

2.I have heard Mr.V.P.Raman, learned counsel for Mr.S.Vedavel, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.Arvind Subramaniam, learned Senior Counsel for Mrs.M.Rajalakshmi @ Sathya for the respondent.

3.Mr.V.P.Raman, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the lease agreement in original was allegedly filed along with the plaint originally before this Court. Thereafter, the suit has been transferred to the file of the Commercial Court, Egmore, Chennai. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the original lease agreement was not marked, however, during cross-examination of DW1, the witness was confronted with a photostat copy of the said lease agreement dated 01.01.2005 and since the witness admitted the document, the trial Court has proceeded to mark the same. Subsequently, the present application in I.A.No.5 of 2025 has been taken up for unmarking the said photocopy of an unstamped and unregistered lease deed, which has been marked as Ex.A14 and also to consequently eschew the evidence insofar as Ex.A14 is concerned.

4.Mr.V.P.Raman would further state that the suit is filed for recovery of rental arrears and damages and the primary purpose, for which the lease agreement is sought to be marked, is to establish the quantum of rent and therefore, even for collateral purposes the said document cannot be marked. Further, he would also state that since the document is not sufficiently stamped and remains unregistered, the lease being for a period of three years, the document itself is inadmissible and the payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty will not cure the defect and it cannot be relied on for any purposes whatsoever.

5.It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that what has been marked is only a photocopy of the lease agreement and surprisingly, the original, which is claimed to have been filed along with the suit as plaint Document No.1 and which went missing, according to the plaintiff has resurfaced and in the absence of the said original being exhibited before the Court, only the photocopy being marked as Ex.A14, he would contend that the trial Court has erroneously ordered the original lease agreement to be impounded when it is not even before the court in the first place. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further refer to the deposition of PW1, where excepting the lease deed, other documents have been marked and when the said lease deed has not been exhibited or even permitted to be exhibited on the side of the plaintiff, the said document cannot be received as evidence, merely because the defendant's witness admitted to the execution of the lease deed.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following decisions:

1. Jayanthi R.Hegde Vs. G.M.Shahul Hameed , (2011 SCC Online Kar 4741).

2. G.M.Shahul Hameed Vs. Jayanthi R.Hegde , (2024 7 SCC 719) .

3. Jupudi Kesava Rao Vs. Pulavarthi Venkata Subba Rao , (1971 (1) SCC 545) .

4.1. Bidyut Sarkar Vs. Kanchilal Pai , (2024 SCC Online SC 2603).

5. Vijay Vs. Union of India , (2023 SCC Online SC 1585) .

K.Mohammad Rafee Vs. A.G.Akbar Shereif , (2006 (2) CTC121).

6. Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra , (2009) 2 SCC 532) .

7. Bakkiyam and Others Vs. Narayanan , (CRP.No.636 of 2024).

8. Pathrakali Vs. R.Senthilkumaran (2010 1 L.S 177) .

9. Yellapu Uma Vs. Buddha Jagadeeshwara Rao , (2015) 16 SCC 787) .

10. K.B.Saha and Sons Private Limited Vs. Development Consultant Limite