A tenant in an eviction suit does not have the right to challenge the trial court's order declining to impound allegedly insufficiently stamped documents filed by the landlord.

Court No. - 4

Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 127 of 2021

Revisionist :- Vipin Kumar Gupta

Opposite Party :- Aniriduh Kumar Gupta

Counsel for Revisionist :- Shiv Sagar Singh

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

The Revisionist has come up challenging the order dated

25.10.2021, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court

No.7, Muzaffar Nagar, rejecting the Revisionist's

application 111 Ga. By the said application, the

Revisionist, who is the tenant in the premises, regarding

which SCC Suit No.3 of 2017 is proceeding before the

learned Additional District Judge for eviction and recovery

of arrears of rent etc., has sought a reference of three lease

deeds relating to other tenants filed by the landlord as

evidence under Sections 31 and 33 of the Indian Stamp

Act, to the Collector. The case in the application is that the

documents filed by the landlord are insufficiently stamped,

going by the rent shown in those documents. The learned

Additional District Judge, has opined that what is before

him is a suit for eviction and arrears of rent, based on the

relationship of landlord and tenant between the revisionist-

defendant and the plaintiff-respondents. It is completely

irrelevant and foreign to the proceedings before the

learned Additional District Judge, whether the documents

filed as paper Nos.41Ga, 42Ga, and 43Ga are sufficiently

stamped or not. It is on this reasoning that the learned

Judge has rejected the defendant-revisionist's application.

I have heard Mr. Shiv Sagar Singh, learned Counsel for the

Revisionist in support of the motion to admit this Revision

to hearing.

Mr. Shiv Sagar Singh, has vehemently argued that the

documents being undervalued, it is the duty of the Court to

impound these document under Section 33 of the Indian

Stamp Act.

It is true that Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, casts an

obligation upon every person having by law or consent of

parties, authority to receive evidence to ascertain whether

any instrument produced before him in the performance of

his duties, is sufficiently stamped, and if not, to impound

the same. The question whether the document is

sufficiently stamped or not is after all a matter between the

person presenting the documents and the Court or the the

person presenting the document, that is to say, the plaintiff

and the revenue. The defendant, who is the tenant, against

whom a suit for eviction is proceeding, at best may be

regarded as an informant who has brought the fact about

the claimed deficiency in the stamp duty paid on

instrument to the Court's notice. The Court ought to look

into it in accordance with its obligation under Section 33

of the Stamp Act, but that would not afford the defendant a

right to challenge the order of the Court, if the Court

declines to take cognizance of the alleged deficiency and

rejects the application to impound the instrument. The

defendant does not have any locus standi to question the

order of the Court declining to take action in respect of a

document, claimed by the defendant to be insufficiently

stamped, by preferring a Revision from that order.

In the opinion of this Court, the order impugned does not

decide any right or fact prejudicially to the defendant's

interest.

The Revision is, therefore, held to be not maintainable. It

is, accordingly, dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 6.1.2022

NSC