Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Haseeb vs Smt Geetha Krishnamurthy on 17 October, 2012
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. BILLAPPA
WRIT PETITION No.39602/2012 &
WRIT PETITION No.40840/2012 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN
1. MOHAMMED HASEEB
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
S/O LATE ABDUL GANI
2. SMT.RAHIMUNNISSA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
W/O LATE ABDUL GANI,
BOTH ARE CARRYING ON BUSINESS
IN THE MEZZANINE AND GROUND
FLOORS OF THE PROPERTY BEARING
NO.14, COMMERCIAL STREET
BANGALORE-560 001.
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.26/1,
'A' BENSON TOWN CROSS,
MILLERS ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 040. ... COMMON
PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHANMUKHAPPA for M/s. KESVY & CO, ADV.,)
-2-
AND
SMT GEETHA KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
W/O V.M.KRISHNAMURTHY
R/O NO.193 4TH MAIN BEML
LAYOUT BASAVESHWARANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 079. ... COMMON RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYARAGHAVAN M R, ADV., for C/R.)
THESE W.Ps. ARE FILED U/A.226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN PASSING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.8.2012 PASSED IN O.S.
NO.591/2010 C/W O.S. NO.7843/2011 BY THE LEARNED CITY
CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. In these writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have called in question, the order dated 14.8.2012, passed by the trial court in O.S.Nos.591/2010 and 7843/2011 vide Annexure-A. -3-
3. By the impugned order, the trial court has impounded the agreement to lease dated 15.8.2000 and has directed the petitioners to pay the duty and penalty failing which the document shall be sent to the Deputy Commissioner under section 37(2) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.
4. Aggrieved by that, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions.
5. The petitioners have filed suit in O.S.No.7843/2011 for enforcement of Clause Nos.1 and 6 of the agreement to lease dated 15.8.2000. The respondent has filed suit in O.S.No.591/2010 for ejectment of the petitioners. The cases have been clubbed and common evidence has been recorded. In the course of evidence, the agreement to lease dated 15.8.2000 has been tendered in evidence. The respondent has raised objections contending that the document is insufficiently stamped and not registered. The trial court taking into consideration that the agreement to lease is insufficiently stamped and not registered has impounded the document and -4- directed the petitioners to pay the duty and penalty. Therefore, these writ petitions.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the petitioners are seeking to enforce Clause Nos.1 and 6 of the agreement to lease and the lease is yet to commence and therefore, the trial court was not justified in impounding the document. Further he submitted that the trial court should have received the document for collateral purpose. He therefore submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.
7. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned order does not call for interference. He also submitted that Article 30 of the Karnataka Stamp Act provides for duty on lease of immoveable property including an under-lease or sub-lease and any agreement to let or sub-let and therefore, agreement to lease comes under Article 30 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and therefore, the trial court was justified in impounding the document. Further he -5- submitted that the agreement to lease is insufficiently stamped and it is not registered and therefore, the trial court was justified in impounding the document and directing the petitioners to pay the duty and penalty and therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
9. The point that arises for my consideration is, Whether the impugned order calls for interference?
10. It is relevant to note, the suit in O.S.No.7843/2011 has been filed by the petitioners is to enforce Clause Nos.1 and 6 of the agreement to lease dated 15.8.2000. O.S.No.591/2010 has been field by the respondent for ejection of the petitioners. Agreement to lease has been tendered in evidence. The respondent has raised objections contending that the document is insufficiently stamped and not registered. The trial court taking into consideration that the agreement to lease is insufficiently stamped and not registered has impounded the -6- document and directed to pay the duty and penalty. Article 30 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 reads as under:
" Art.30. (Lease of immoveable property) (1) Lease of immoveable property including an under-lease or sub-lease and any agreement to let or sub-let where by such lease, the rent is fixed, or fine or premium or money advanced or security deposit (as the case may be) is paid or delivered:-
(iii) Where the lease purports to be for a term exceeding one year and not exceeding ten years. "
11. It is clear agreement to lease is also covered under Article 30 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. Agreement to lease dated 15.8.2000 is insufficiently stamped and not registered. Therefore, the trial court was justified in impounding the document and directing the petitioners to pay the duty and penalty on the agreement to lease dated 15.8.2000. I do not find any error or illegality in it. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. There is no -7- merit in these writ petitions and therefore, they are liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
Dvr: