DAYALDAS POHUMAL Vs. MOORAJMAL PRITAMDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed by the applicant against an order dated 11-10-1972 passed by the Second Civil Judge, Class II, Bhopal, in Regular Civil Suit No. 456-A of 1972.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to this petition are that non-applicant landlord has filed a suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and mesne profits against the applicant-tenant. In the said suit the applicant is required to deposit the rent of the accommodation every month on or before 15th of each English calendar month under section 13 (1) of the M. P. Accommodation Control act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). The applicant had been depositing the rent as required by law in the Court vide memo of deposit. But when on 11-10 1972 the applicant submitted the memo of deposit for the rent of September, 1972 payable in the month of October, 1972, the lower court ordered payment of Court-fee of Rs. 1. 50 by affixing a court-fee stamp of that valuation as per Schedule II, Article 1 (b) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (as amended in its application to Madhya Pradesh) which reads as under:

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the applicant alone, as non-applicant was not present nor represented, and after giving serious thought in the matter, I am of the opinion that this revision must be allowed. Before I proceed to decide the point, I refer to the memo, of deposit which runs as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_920_MPLJ_1974Html1.htm</FRM> In the aforementioned memo, there is no prayer clause. Since the rent has to be deposited in Court in pursuance of section 13 of the Act, the necessary details have been mentioned for accounting the money to be so deposited, otherwise in the absence of the details, the amount could not be accepted for deposit. What has to be borne in mind is that while submitting the memo. , the applicant is not seeking any order or permission of the Court for depositing the rent. The applicant is depositing the rent as enjoined upon him in view of the provisions of section 13 of the Act. Therefore, it is difficult to contemplate that the Legislature could envisage payment of court-fee in such a situation. I have not come across any provision in the Act or in the Code of Civil procedure or the High Court Rules and Orders in Madhya Pradesh that an application or petition is necessary if rent is to be deposited in Court in pursuance of any provision of law or order of a Court. Memorandum of deposit is only for the facility of the officer of the Court who accepts it. What was written in the memorandum could also be told orally for the record to be maintained about the deposit in the Court. That is to say, no formal application is required to be made for deposit of rent as no written application is compulsory. Even if a person chooses to do so in writing at his discretion, that paper would require no stamp. The lower Court was error in treating such a memorandum as an application for seeking permission to deposit rent and, therefore, requiring court-fee stamp of Rs. 1. 50 in accordance with schedule II, Article 1 (b) of the Court Fees Act, 1870. The approach of the lower Court, in my view, which has been expressed earlier, was erroneous. I am supported in my view point by a decision of the Division Bench of the bombay High Court in Hira Ambaidas v. Tekchand Ambaidas (ILR 13 Bom. 670 ). Accordingly i hold that memorandum of deposit in the present case need bear no stamp.