SULTAN SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application by the respondent under Ss. 33 and 35 of the Stamp Act requesting to determine if the lease deed dt. 15th Jan. , 1975 between the petitioner and the respondent (Marked C) was not properly stamped, if so, to grant her opportunity to pay the deficit duty and penalty under S. 35 of the Stamp Act. ( 2 ) SMT. Maheshwari Seth, respondent filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner under S. 14 (1 ) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. She alleged that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant on I5th Jan. 1975 at Rs. 500. 00 per month besides electricity and water charges in a portion of her house at Vasant Vihar, New Delhi in terms of a deed of lease dt. 15th Jan. , 1975 executed between the parties; the premises were let for residential purposes which were required bona fide for the residence of herself and members of her family dependent upon her; she was the owner thereof, and she had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. The petitioner in the written statement pleaded that the premises were let for all purposes i. e. residential-cum- commercial, that no purpose of letting was specified in the lease deed, which was inadmissible in evidence. The respondent pleaded that the lease deed was admissible in evidence. ( 3 ) THE respondent appeared as her own witness (A. W. 1) on 8th Aug. , 1984. During her examination the lease deed dt. 15th Jan. , 1975 admittedly signed by the petitioner and the respondent was tendered in evidence. The lease deed was marked as c . It was not exhibited. There is no endorsement on the lease deed within the meaning of O. 13, R. 4 of the Civil P. C. admitting the document in evidence. But from the pleadings of the parties and the fact that this document was marked c it is apparent that there was dispute before the Additional Rent Controller about the admissibility of this document in evidence on ground of non-registration and non-payment of proper stamp duty. ( 4 ) THE Additional Rent Controller after recording evidence passed an order of eviction against the petitioner by judgment dt. 4th July, 1985. ( 4 ) THE Additional Rent Controller after recording evidence passed an order of eviction against the petitioner by judgment dt. 4th July, 1985. He has observed that the lease deed is marked c and has not been exhibited for want of registration and proper stamp duty. ( 5 ) SECTIONS 33 and 35 of the Stamp Act, 1899 read as under : "33 (1) 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. (2) For that purpose every such person shall examine every instrument so chargeable and so produced or coming before him in order to ascertain whether it is stamped with a stamp of the value and description required by the law in force in India when such instrument was executed or first executed : Provided that (a) nothing herein contained shall be deemed to require any Magistrate or Judge of a Criminal Court to examine or impound, if he does not think fit so to do, any instrument coming before him in the course of any proceeding other than a proceeding under Chap. XII or Chap. XXXVI of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. (b) in the case of a Judge of a High Court, the duty of examining and impounding any instrument under this section may be delegated to such officer as the Court appoints in this behalf. (3) For the purposes of this section, in cases of doubt (a) the State Government may determine what offices shall be deemed to be public offices; and (b) the State Government may determine who shall be deemed to be persons in charge of public offices". "35. 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 : Provided that (a) any such instrument not being an instrument chargeable with a duty not exceeding ten naye paise only, or a bill of exchange or promissory note. shall, subject to all just exceptions, be admitted in evidence on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable, or. in the case of an instrument, insufficiently stamped, of the amount required to make up such duty, together with a penalty of five rupees, or when ten times the amount of the proper duty or deficient portion thereof exceeds five rupees, of a sum equal to ten times such duty or portion; (b) where any person from whom a stamped receipt could have been demanded, has given an unstamped receipt, and such receipt, if stamped, would be admissible in evidence against him, then such receipt shall be admitted in evidence against him on payment of a penalty of one rupee by the person tendering it; (c) where a contract or agreement of any kind is effected by correspondence consisting of two or more letters and any one of the letters bears the proper stamp, the contract or agreement shall be deemed to be duly stamped; (d) nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in any proceedings in a Criminal Court, other than a proceeding under Chap. XII or Chap. XXXVI of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898; (e) nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in any Court when such instrument has been executed by or on behalf of the Government, or where it bears the certificate of the Collector as provided by S. 32 or any other provision of this Act". Section 33 provides for the examination of instruments by judicial officers for the purpose of ascertaining whether the document is duly stamped, and in cases where such officer is. satisfied that it is not, for the impounding of the same. The section casts a duty on all judicial officers to examine and, if found to be inadequately stamped, to impound any such instrument. Where a judicial officer impounds an instrument under this section he must, unless he has by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence and admits the instrument on payment of a penalty, send the instrument to the Collector. Where a judicial officer impounds an instrument under this section he must, unless he has by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence and admits the instrument on payment of a penalty, send the instrument to the Collector. Section 35 provides the only sanction under the Stamp Act to ensure that an instrument chargeable with duty is in fact stamped; that an instrument chargeable with duty which is not duly stamped is not void but it cannot be admitted in evidence for any purpose, and cannot be acted upon, registered or authenticated. The Court must not admit in evidence an instrument not duly stamped. An objection as to an instrument not being duly stamped must be taken at the trial when the instrument is first tendered in evidence. If the instrument is once admitted, such admission is conclusive for the purposes of the suit under S. 36 of the Stamp Act. Proviso (a) permits instruments other than those chargeable with a duty of ten naya paise or less or bills of exchange or promissory notes to be admitted in evidence on payment of the deficit duty and penalty. If the deficit duty and penalty is paid, the Court must admit the instrument and certify it under S. 42 (1) of the Stamp Act and send an authorised copy to the Collector under S. 38 (1) of the Stamp Act. If the deficit duty and penalty are not paid, the Court must refuse to admit the instrument, and send the original itself to the Collector. ( 6 ) IN Ram Rattan v. Bajrang Lal, AIR 1978 SC 1393 it has been observed that when the document is tendered in evidence by the plaintiff while in witness box and objection is raised by the defendant that the document is inadmissible in evidence as it is not duly stamped or for want of registration, it is obligatory upon the trial Judge to apply his mind to the objection raised and to decide the objection in accordance with law. ( 7 ) THE original lease deed marked c was executed on non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 11- only. From the record of the trial Court it does not appear that the objection of the petitioner regarding stamp duty and non-registration of the lease deed marked c was ever judicially examined by the Additional Rent Controller prior to his final judgment. 11- only. From the record of the trial Court it does not appear that the objection of the petitioner regarding stamp duty and non-registration of the lease deed marked c was ever judicially examined by the Additional Rent Controller prior to his final judgment. The respondent was not given any opportunity to get the document exhibited in evidence by allowing her to pay the deficit duty and penalty thereon within the meaning of S. 35 of the Stamp Act, 1899. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent submits that there was a dispute about the stamp duty payable on a document. It was the duty of the Additional Rent Controller to judicially determine the same and he ought to have given her opportunity to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty under S. 35 of the Stamp Act. His argument is that without giving such opportunity theAdditional Rent Controller held that the document was not admissible in evidence and that the observations of the Additional Rent Controller are not in accordance with law. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner-tenant submits that it was the duty of the landlady to tender at the time of production of the document deficit stamp duty and penalty. No authority has been cited in support of this contention by the petitioner s counsel. The Additional Rent Controller at no time previous to his final judgment decided that the lease deed marked c was inadmissible in evidence for want of requisite stamp duty. It was only in the final judgment that the Additional Rent Controller held that the document was insufficiently stamped. That being so there was no. occasion for the Additional Rent Controller. It is not contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Additional Rent Controller ever gave an opportunity to the respondent to pay deficit duty and penalty. Under these circumstances I am of the view that the proper course for the Additional Rent Controller was, after it held that the document was not duly stamped, to give an opportunity to the respondent to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty. ( 10 ) BY this application the respondent-landlady has offered to pay the requisite stamp duty and penalty under S. 35 of the Stamp Act. ( 10 ) BY this application the respondent-landlady has offered to pay the requisite stamp duty and penalty under S. 35 of the Stamp Act. In Thakar Das Rup Chand v. Sher Ahmad Iqbal Ahmad, AIR 1934 Lah 730 it has been held that where the party had no opportunity to tender deficit duty and penalty when the document was produced in evidence, the tender of the same in the appellate Court was proper. Similar observations were made in Narain Datt v. Kirpa Kishan, AIR 1932 Lah 616. In that case the trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the document was insufficiently stamped. Counsel during the course of arguments showed his readiness and willingness to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty prescribed by law. He was allowed to pay the deficit duty and penalty in appeal. ( 11 ) IT is the duty of the trial Court to determine the question of admissibility of unstamped or insufficiently stamped document judicially as soon as it is tendered in evidence and before it is marked as Exhibit. Such a question should not be left undetermined till final judgment. If for any reason such a question is determined at the final stage and the Court comes to the conclusion that the document is not duly stamped opportunity must be given to the party who tenders the document in evidence to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty under S. 35 of the Stamp Act. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the lease deed marked c is signed by the landlady and the tenant, that it requires registration under S. 107 of the T. P. Act and as the same is not registered, the respondent cannot be allowed to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty. There is a difference between S. 35 of the Stamp Act and S. 49 of the Registration Act. There is a difference between S. 35 of the Stamp Act and S. 49 of the Registration Act. If a document is not duly stamped, S. 35 of the Stamp Act makes it inadmissible for any purpose whatsoever i. e. it cannot be used even for a collateral purpose (See : Ram Rattan v. Parma Nand, AIR 1946 PC 51); but if the document is either properly stamped or is not required to be stamped but is required to be registered, S. 49 of the Registration Act declares it to be inadmissible for the purpose of affecting any right in immovable property comprised therein or be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property but it permits such document to be used as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by a registered instrument. The order of the Additional Rent Controller holding that the lease deed marked c was not admissible in evidence is not in accordance with law and therefore I allow the respondent-landlady to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty under S. 35 of the Stamp Act. ( 13 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent waived her right to pay deficit stamp duty and the penalty. There is no question of waiver. It was the duty of the Additional Rent Controller, as already held, to determine the dispute and to give an opportunity to the respondent to pay deficit duty and penalty. ( 14 ) THE next question is what was the stamp duty payable on the lease deed on 15th Jan. , 1975 when it was executed. Paras 2 and 15 of the lease deed read as under : "para 2 : The house would be on lease for a minimum period of eleven months from the date of occupation, after the expiry of which the lease would be deemed to have been extended on the same terms and conditions until the lease is terminated on one month s notice. "para 15 : That the lessee shall have the right to terminate the lease by giving thirty days" notice in writing to the lessor". From these paras it is apparent that the lease was for a period of eleven months only. Besides this there is a clause for renewal of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a lease for an indefinite period. From these paras it is apparent that the lease was for a period of eleven months only. Besides this there is a clause for renewal of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a lease for an indefinite period. ( 15 ) SECTION 5 of the Stamp Act is as under: "any instrument comprising or relating to several distinct matters shall be chargeable with the aggregate amount of the duties with which separate instruments, each comprising or relating to one of such matters, would be chargeable under this Act. " ( 16 ) THE lease deed is only for a period of eleven months. The term of renewal is not a distinct matter within the meaning of S. 5 of the Stamp Act. There is only one contract of lease for eleven months. In Secretary to Commissioner of Salt, Abkari and Separate Revenue, Board of Revenue v. Mr. Sutherland, (1902) ILR 25 Mad 3 it has been held that a lease for three years containing a covenant on the part of the lessor to renew it. at the option of the lessee, for a further period of one year or two years from the expiration of the original term is not an instrument comprising or relating to several distinct matters within the meaning of S. 5 of the Stamp Act. 1899. Such an instrument contains but on contract, namely a demise. The option to renew is ancillary to and forms part of the consideration for entering into the lease. Similar observations were made in Apu Budgavda v. Narhari Annajee, (1878-79) ILR 3 Bom 21. ( 17 ) I am thus of the view that the lease deed marked c is only for a period of eleven months and the renewal clause is ancillary and the stamp duty thereon is payable under Art. 35 (a) (i) read with Art. 15 of Sch. I of the Stamp Act, 1899, applicable to Delhi on a lease for eleven months. The monthly rent is Rs. 500. 00. Thus the stamp duty payable was Rs. 55. 00 and stamp duty of Rs. 11- only has already been paid. There is deficiency of Rs. 53. 00. Under S. 35 of the Stamp Act the respondent who tendered the document in evidence is liable to pay deficit duty and penalty. A sum of Rs. 583. 00 is thus payable by the respondent. 55. 00 and stamp duty of Rs. 11- only has already been paid. There is deficiency of Rs. 53. 00. Under S. 35 of the Stamp Act the respondent who tendered the document in evidence is liable to pay deficit duty and penalty. A sum of Rs. 583. 00 is thus payable by the respondent. The respondent is allowed to deposit deficit duty and penalty Rs. 583. 00. On payment of the said amount the lease deed marked c shall be deemed to have been admitted in evidence and marked as Ex. AZ. No order as to costs.