BRIJ BHUSHAN RAI Vs. DEVENDRA NATH VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision has been filed against the order dated July 4, 2000 passed by the XIIIth Additional District Judge, Varanasi whereby and whereunder it has been held that the instrument in question which is in the nature of a rent agreement is duly stamped. The plaintiff-opposite party instituted the suit No.6 of 1993 against the present applicant on the allegations that the plaintiff is the owner of newly constructed three shops towards the west of premises No. CK 64/98, Heerapura, Varanasi. The defendant-applicant herein is the tenant thereof w.e.f. 1st of June, 1987 at a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/-. The tenancy of the defendant began on the first date of each month and ended on the last date of the same month. The tenancy was oral and it was accompanied with the delivery of possession. It was agreed that there would be enhancement in the rent by 15 per cent after every five years. The defendant is in arrears of rent from July, 1992 and has failed to pay enhanced rent for the period earlier to it. The tenancy has been terminated. The relief for ejectment, a decree for recovery of Rs.14,471/- being rent for the month of January, 1992 and mesne profit amounting to Rs.4,600/- from 6th of January, 1993 up to the date of suit, pendente lite and future mesne profit etc. has been claimed. In the written statement the defendant-applicant pleaded that the plaintiff landlord agreed to let out the said accommodation to the defendant subject to the condition that there may be no allotment intervening the contract of tenancy and the defendant tenant will make a security deposit of Rs.1 Lakh with the plaintiff without any to the effect which would be refundable at the time of end of the tenancy without any interest thereon. The agreement of tenancy was oral which was subsequently reduced in writing.

(2.) THE suit is still pending decision before the trial court. The plaintiff opposite party filed a document dated 4th of May, 1987 which is in the form of an agreement executed by the defendant-applicant in favour of the plaintiff opposite party. An application No. 33 C, giving rise to the present revision was filed by the defendant applicant on the ground that the said document dated 4th of June, 1987 is deficiently stamped. The said document is in respect of indeterminate period of lease and therefore, the stamp duty should have been paid accordingly. But the same has not been paid and therefore, the said document be impounded and should be sent to the competent authority for recovery of the stamp duty.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The learned counsel for the applicant in support of the revision has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra : 2009 Allahabad Civil Journal 478. He submits that on a reading of document as a whole it is but obvious that through the said document, a lease for indeterminate period has been created. In contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff landlord, on the other hand, submits that the said document is in the nature of memorandum of an agreement to lease and as such the proper stamp duty amounting to Rs.6/- has been paid thereon. At the relevant point of time the prescribed stamp duty on such document was Rs.6/- only.