I RAMANAIAB Vs. S RADBAKRISBOAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order passed by the Principal District Munsif, Nellore in E. A. No. 379/1978 in E. A. No. 229/1978 in R. C. C. No. 55/1976.

(2.) The petitioner is- the tenant of the rest. ondent-landlord. In the eviction proceedings launched by the respondent in R. C. C. No. 55/1976 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Nellore, the respondent filed I A. No. 156/ 1977 under Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 calling upon the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent. That petition was ordered on 27-6-1977 directing the petitioner herein to deposit the arrears of rent from 21-6-1976 to 27-6-1977 at the rate of Rs. 250/ per month and he was given 15 days time from 27-6-1977 to pay the said arrears with a condition that if the petitioner fails to deposit as directed, the petitioner was directed to vacate the building and put the respondent-landlord in possession of the premises. As the petitioner failed to comply with the order in I. A. No. 156/1977, R. C. C. No. 55/1976 was allowed and the petitioner was granred one month's time from 13-7-1977 to vacate the building and to put the respondent in possession of the same. As against that order, an appeal was preferred in R. C. A. No. 17/1977 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nellore. The learned Subordinate Judge, Nellore; dismissed it. Then the petitioner preferred a revision which was also dismissed by this Court. This court granted time till the end of March, 1978 for vacating the premises. After the revision petition was dismissed by this court, it appears that the petitioner and the respondent entered into fresh rental agreement on 17-3-1978. The petitioner, therefore, filed E. A. No. 229/1978 on 20-3-1978 praying for declaration that the eviction order passed in R. C. C. No. 55/1976 as confirmed by the Sub-Court and the High Court has been given up by the respondent and has been supeiseded by the fresh rental agreement dated 17-3-1978 entered into by the petitioner and the respondent and as such, the eviction is not executable against the petitioner and the execu'ion petition, if filed by the respondent, should be dismissed and record the adjustment of the decree as per the terms mentioned in the rental agreement dated 17-3-1978. That petition came for enquiry. Evidence was being recorded in that petition. The petitioner was examined on 7-4-1978 and 24-4- 1978. During the course of examination, he filed the rental agreement dated 17-3-1978 for the purpose of evidence. Then the respondent's counsel raised objection contending that it cannot be admitted in evidence for want of sufficent stamp. Thereafter, the petitioner filed E. A. No. 379/1978 on 21-6-1678 requesting the Court to send the document under Sec. 38 (2) to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore for collection of proper duty and penalty. The lower court refused to send the document to the Revenue Divisional Officer under Sec. 38 (2)of the STAMP ACT, 1899. The learned District Munsif insisted on the petitioner to pay the duty and penalty at or before 2 P M., on or before 8-8-1978, If the petitioner wants to have the document admitted in evidence and if the duty and penalty as levied by him are not paid at the stipulated time and date, then, the document will be sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 38 (2) of the STAMP ACT, 1899, (here in fafter referred to as the 'Act'), but he will proceed with the enquiry. Aggrieved with that order, the petitioner filed this revision.

(3.) Sri Koka Raghava Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the lower court has no jurisdiction to pass such an order. According to him the Court has no option, but to send the document to the Collector under Section 38 (2) of the Act when the petitioner wants the Court to send it to the Collector to be dealt with under Section 40. He, therefore, submits that the lower Court has no jurisdiction to say that it does not send the document to the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 38J(2) unless the petitioner fails to deposit the duty and penalty at the time and the date stipulated by it and it has no jurisdiction to say that it would go on with the enquiry after the document is sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer under section 38 (2) in case of failure on the part of the petitioner to pay the duty and penalty at the stipulated time.