Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1133 (AP)

Sakalabhaktula Lalitha v. Nandana Ranga Rao

2011-12-12

B.CHANDRA KUMAR

body2011
Judgment : Being aggrieved by the docket order dated 15-06-2011, passed in R.C.C. No.8 of 2007 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. The Petitioners herein are the Respondents and Respondents herein are the Petitioners in the R.C.C. No.8 of 2007.For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the lower Court. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows : The first respondent herein is the landlord and the petitioners herein are the tenants of the schedule property. The first respondent herein filed R.C.C. No.8 of 2007 seeking to evict the petitioners on the ground that they committed default in paying the rents. While so, the first respondent herein died and after his death, respondents Nos.2 to 6 are brought on record as his legal representatives vide orders in I.A. No.14 of 2008, dated 16-09-2008. Subsequently, the petitioners herein filed I.A. No.11 of 2011 seeking to decide whether lease agreement dated 26-09-2001 requires compulsory registration with deficit stamp duty and also permit them to receive the said document on their behalf. The learned Judge took into consideration the endorsement made on behalf of the respondents that there was no objection to receive the same, allowed the I.A. No.11 of 2001 on 13-04-2011. Thereafter the petitioners filed I.A. No.19 of 2011 to recall RW-1 to mark the lease agreement dated 26-09-2001. During the pendency of I.A. No.19 of 2011, the learned judge passed docket order in R.C.C. No.8 of 2007 on 15-06-2011 declaring that the document in question dated 26-09-2001 cannot be marked in evidence. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. A document which is compulsorily registrable one and requires stamp duty when sought to be marked and when an application has been filed to determine whether it can be received in evidence or not, the Court has to necessarily pass orders. In this case, the petitioners have filed an agreement dated 26-09-2001. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the document is only an agreement with an understanding to obtain a leased deed in future it does not require registration. In this case, the petitioners have filed an agreement dated 26-09-2001. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the document is only an agreement with an understanding to obtain a leased deed in future it does not require registration. The lower Court observed as follows in the impugned order : “4. When the nature of document has to be analysed with reference to stamp duty or registration, the Court has to look into the recitals of the documents. Therefore, in order to decide whether the document dated 26-09-2001 is “Lease Deed or Agreement”, it is necessary to examine the relevant portion of the document which are as under :- The nomenclature of the deed is “Lease deed” for a period of 5 years. Of course, it is not nomenclature, but the recitals in the document, which have to be considered for deciding stamp duty and necessity of registration. In the said document, the 1st petitioner is shown as 1st party (Lessor) and the respondents are shown as 2nd party (Lessee). In the 2nd para, it is mentioned that the property described in 3rd para schedule is “Leased out” to the 2nd party for running a hotel in the name of “New Sreerama Parlour”. In the 1st clause, the rent is noted as Rs.6,000/-payable by 2nd party to the 1st party and the building has to be handed over by the 1st party to the 2nd party by 01-10-2001. The 2nd party has to pay the electricity charges whereas, the 1st party has to pay the municipal taxes. In the 3rd clause, it is noted that Rs.1,00,000/- is deposited by the 2nd party to the 1st party and obtained a receipt thereof which has to be repayable to the 2nd party by the 1st party at the time of vacation of the schedule premises by the 2nd party and shall obtain a receipt. The 4th clause shows the lease agreement is from 01-10-2001 to 30-09-2006 for a period of 5 years and even after 5 years, if the 2nd party wants to continue the business in the schedule premises for further 3 years, enhanced rent Rs.1,000/- has to be paid by the 2nd party to the 1st party and shall obtain receipts. The 5th clause is that the schedule premises by then was with Ac sheet roof. The 5th clause is that the schedule premises by then was with Ac sheet roof. Therefore, the 2nd party can remove the said roof and lay RCC slab with their funds and also obtain 3 phase electricity connection by making necessary deposit by the 2nd party and the expenses incurred for the RCC slab and amount of deposit for 3 phase electricity connection by the 2nd party shall be repayable by the 1st party at the time of vacating the premises by the 2nd party. 5. Therefore, the reading of the document shows the document itself created lease in favour of the respondent/2nd party which also shows the 1st party has collected an advance of Rs.1,00,000/-under the said document and passed the receipt. Therefore, it is clear that by accepting the advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- vide the said document dated 26-09-2001, the relationship of lessor and lessee between the parties had come into existence. Moreover, the reading of the document shows the lease is initially for a period of 5 years commencing from 01-10-2001 to 30-09-2006. Therefore, as the document is lease deed and extending for a period of more than one year, it requires the stamp duty penalty as well as registration. Therefore, not admissible in evidence and can’t be marked”. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also filed Xerox copy of the said lease agreement dated 26-09-2001. Recitals of the document as extracted above are not in dispute. When the recitals of the document clearly go to show that the lease is commencing from 01-10-2001 to 30-09-2006 for a period of 5 years and with an agreement to enhance the rent from time to time and also shows that advance amount was collected under the said document and when there is no recital in the document that it is only an understanding or an agreement for the purpose of obtaining a regular lease deed, by stretch of no imagination it can be said that it is not a lease deed but only an agreement to obtain a lease deed in future. As per clause 18 of the Registration Act, when a document is compulsorily registrable and unstamped the same cannot be received in evidence. As per clause 18 of the Registration Act, when a document is compulsorily registrable and unstamped the same cannot be received in evidence. Collateral purpose means not for the main purpose i.e. it can be used only for the purpose of proving the possession or status of the parties, but when the recitals of the document are very clear and the purpose of filing a document is only to establish tenancy rights accrued to a party that means creating rights in a party or to establish rights created under a document, it cannot be said that such document can be used for collateral purpose. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contentions has relied upon a decision of this Court reported in Pullella Lakshminarayana and another v. Maddimsetti Mukteswara Rao and another ( 2009 (4) ALT 567 ).The facts of that case are entirely different; in that case this Court having observed the recitals of the document filed in that case, categorically observed as follows : “On a careful reading of the document in question, a recital had been incorporated to the effect that the lessor and lessee hereby agree to get lease deed with the above terms and conditions executed and registered when demanded by either of the parties”. Thus, it is clear that the parties in that case agreed to get a regular lease deed in future. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that at the initial stage the Court should have received the document and left open for its determination after both the parties adduced evidence and could have received the document subject to objection. 9. Now in this case the peculiar facts are that the petitioners themselves filed an application before the Court to determine the nature of the document and having filed an application to determine the nature of the document and when they have suffered an order from the lower Court now they cannot say that the lower Court should not have decided the nature of the document and should have left it open at the time of final disposal of the case. It has become a practice or it can be said that parties are taking advantage of the word ‘collateral purpose’. It has become a practice or it can be said that parties are taking advantage of the word ‘collateral purpose’. All inadmissible evidences, such as unregistered and unstamped documents are being marked in several Courts in the name of collateral purpose and this practice is not good and it should not be encouraged. It defeats the very purpose of the Registration Act and also causes loss to the Exchequer by defeating the provisions of Indian Stamp Act. 10. Of course, it appears that I.A. No.11 of 2011 seems to have been allowed on 13-04-2011 when other side represented that the petition may be allowed on terms but on 15-06-2011 the lower Court passed a docket order with regard to the admissibility of the document. A party cannot take advantage of a clerical mistake or some incorrect number or order or any words used in any order; the main purport and purpose of the order has to be taken into consideration. A reading of the lower Court order passed on 15-06-2011 holding that the document in question requires registration is absolutely justified and no interference is required by this Court and accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.