M JAYARAMAIAH Vs. L LAKKAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 17.07.2012 made in I.A.No.130 of 2012 in O.S.No.121 of 2010 on the file of the Sub-Court, Hosur, dismissing the application filed under Section 151 CPC read with Sections 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 seeking to direct the respondent to pay the stamp duty penalty to the Registration department. The petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit.

(2.) The respondent, who is the plaintiff in the suit, has filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.8.00 lakhs being the caution deposit advance amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation and for costs. The plaintiff is the tenant and the defendant is the landlord. Pending suit, the petitioner herein has filed I.A.No.130 of 2012 seeking to seeking to direct the respondent to pay the stamp duty penalty to the Registration department.

(3.) In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner alleged that the respondent had paid only an advance amount of Rs.50,000/- and the petitioner filed his written statement with counter-claim for arrears of rent upto 2002 till surrendering of vacant possession. According to the petitioner, the respondent has not paid the sum of Rs.8.00 lakhs as advance and also it is false to say that the petitioner had signed the rental agreement dated 14.05.1997. The alleged rental agreement is not binding on the petitioner and the same is not a registered agreement. Since the period fixed in the alleged agreement was 12 months, it ought to have been registered. Therefore, the rental agreement cannot be marked as exhibit in the suit. Hence, the petitioner has filed the application seeking to direct the respondent to pay the stamp duty penalty to the Registration department.