CR-4582-2017 (O&M)

-1-

274

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CR-4582-2017 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 29.08.2022

Gurvinder Singh

....Petitioner

VERSUS

Taranjit Singh

....Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present :

Mr. Sharan Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

The present civil revision has been preferred under Article 227

of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 02.05.2017

whereby the application filed by the tenant-petitioner for impounding the

original lease deed dated 05.08.2010 has been dismissed.

The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the landlord-

respondent filed an ejectment petition on the ground of non-payment of

rent. The landlord-respondent led his evidence and relied upon the lease

deed dated 05.08.2010 which was exhibited as Ex.P-1/A. At the time of

exhibiting of the said document, no objection was raised by the tenant-

petitioner qua the admissibility of the said document. Thereafter, after a

period of 11 months, an application was filed by the tenant-petitioner for

impounding the original lease deed dated 05.08.2010 on the ground that the

said lease deed had been executed on insufficiently stamped paper and

hence it was required to be impounded and deficient stamp duty was

TRIPTI SAINI

2022.08.30 14:22

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

required to be paid. The said application was contested by the landlord-

respondent by contending that the lease deed was for a period of 11 months

and hence not compulsorily registerable. It was further stated in the reply

that the application was filed only to delay the proceedings and that the

application had been filed after more than a year of the document having

been exhibited. The Rent Controller vide the impugned order dated

02.05.2017 dismissed the said application as not maintainable and the case

was fixed for evidence and final opportunity was granted to the tenant-

petitioner to lead his evidence.

Learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner would contend that

the document Ex.P-1/A could not have been exhibited in the evidence in

view of the fact that the same was insufficiently stamped. In support of his

argument the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of Madras High

Court passed in the case of V.Ponnusamy Vs. N.Namis Dhas & Ors.

[1998 (3) CivCC 377] and the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in

M/s SMS Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Chandmari Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd.

[2012(1) RCR (Civil) 305].

Per contra, learned counsel for the landlord-respondent has

contended that as per Section 29(c) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 the onus

to pay the stamp duty was on the lessee. It is further the contention that at

the time of exhibition of the said document no objection was raised qua the

admissibility. Since no objection qua the admissibility was raised at the

time of exhibiting of the document, the same cannot be raised at a later

stage. In support of his argument, the learned counsel has relied upon

R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P

Temple & Ors. [2003 (4) RCR (Civil) 704].

TRIPTI SAINI

2022.08.30 14:22

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

Heard.

In the present case the lease deed in question is undisputedly

for a period of 11 months. The same was led in evidence by the landlord-

respondent and at the time of exhibiting of the said document and

admittedly no objection was raised qua its admissibility. After a period of

11 months and after having availed numerous opportunities to lead

evidence, the present application was filed for impounding of the lease deed

on the ground that the same was insufficiently stamped. The Supreme Court

in the case of R.V.E Venkatachala