KIRAN S. PUROHIT Vs. RENT TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 08th September, 2009 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Jaipur whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner wherein the petitioner had prayed that the respondent No. 2, Harish Ahlawat be directed to either pay penalty of Rs. 20,780/ -, or the lease agreement dated 04th August, 2003 should be impounded and the same should not be read in evidence.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Harish Ahalwat, the respondent No. 2, filed a suit before the learned Tribunal against the petitioner for eviction on the ground that after the termination of the lease, the petitioner has become a trespasser and the plot is needed on a bona fide basis. The petitioner filed his written statement and denied the allegations. Subsequently, on 06th August, 2009, the petitioner moved an application wherein he contended that the lease agreement dated 04th August, 2003 was not drawn up properly as the stamp duty required to be paid on such a lease deed was not affixed. The lease agreement was drawn up on a stamp paper of Rs. 100/ - whereas it should have been drawn up on a stamp paper of Rs. 2,178/ -. The petitioner further prayed that since the lease agreement is improperly stamped, the same should be impounded or in the alternative the leas agreement should not be read in evidence. However, vide order dated 08th September, 2009 the learned Tribunal dismissed the said application. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.