Karnataka High Court
Sri. L. Doreswamy vs Sri. Krishnaprasad A on 11 January, 2017
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
H. R. R. P. NO. 101 OF 2016
BETWEEN
SRI. L. DORESWAMY
S/O LATE LINGAPPA
ADVOCATE
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT NO.4/1, OLD NO.34
GROUND FLOOR, 17TH CROSS
WEST PARK ROAD
MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE 560 055
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR S, ADV.)
AND
SRI. KRISHNAPRASAD A
S/O LATE DR. A.RAMAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT NO.26, SBI COLONY
J.P. NAGAR 1ST PHASE
SARAKKI LAYOUT
BANGALORE 560 078 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. C.S. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI ALLAH BAKASH M, ADV.)
THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.16(1) OF THE KARNATAKA
RENT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED: 01.12.2016 PASSED IN
HRC.NO.49/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF
2
SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU, IN SO FAR IT RELATES TO
IMPOUNDING OF THE DOCUMENT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The respondent-petitioner filed H.R.C. proceedings in H.R.C.No.49/2016 on the file of the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-1) seeking eviction against the petitioner to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the schedule premises. After chief examination, the matter was posted for cross examination of PW1. During the cross examination respondent confronted the document of lease deed and while marking the document, the same was objected on the ground that the lease deed is not registered and not properly stamped.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the document which was sought to confront, the lease deed dated 28.08.2009 is for the purpose of security bond which has to be considered under article 47 of the Karnataka Stamp Act 1957. The learned judge, despite of 3 the submission made for consideration of the case under article 47 has directed to impound the document and further directed to calculate the duty and penalty towards deficit stamp duty and penalty and petitioner was directed to pay the same. Being aggrieved by the order, the petitioner is before this court in this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Judge before passing the order of impounding, the petitioner could have been given an opportunity to substantiate the contention whether document is duly stamped. There is no discussion or reasons assigned as to the applicability of article 47 of the Stamp Act. Under these circumstances, the petitioner deprives of being heard under article 47 of the Stamp Act. Hence, he requests to set aside the order dated 1.12.2016 and to remand the matter back with a direction and to give findings on the submission made by the petitioner as to the applicability of Article 47 of the Karnataka Stamp Act.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the document which is sought to be confronted is a 4 mortgage deed for which the petitioner has to pay duty and penalty with interest at the rate of 8% under article 34 of the Stamp Act. Hence he submits that the order does not suffer from any infirmity and sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. Heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. The specific contention is made by the petitioner on the fact that document which is sought is only a lease deed on a stamp paper of Rs. 100/- recording the lease on a security deposit. The learned Judge without assigning any reasons, directed the office to impound the document and collect the duty and penalty and calculate the amount of penalty which is not proper. Before passing such order the learned judge should have given an opportunity to the concerned to have his say and also there is no discussion or reasons assigned to that effect for rejecting the case of the respondent for the purpose of confronting such document. Under these circumstances, petition succeeds and accordingly, I pass the following: 5
ORDER The impugned order dated 1.12.2016 passed by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru in H.R.C. No.49/2016 is hereby set aside.
The matter is remanded back to the learned Judge to pass a fresh order and also it is directed to assign the reasons for accepting or rejecting the case of the respondent for confronting the said document for payment of penalty and stamp duty.
With these observations, petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE HR