ivil Appeal Nos
1936  1937 of 1990
From the Judgment and Order dated 2671989 of the Delhi High Court in CWP No 852 of 1989 and 2852 of 1988
SKMehta Aman Vachhar and Atul Nanda for the Appellants
SC Manohanda Manoj Arora VK Sharma and RK Maheshwari for the Respondents
630 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATHAN J
After hearing counsel for all parties we grant special leave in these two petitions and proceed to dispose of the appeals finally by this common order as the point involved is a common one
We are dealing with the matter at some length as it raises certain important aspects of the Stamp Act 1899 and the which are likely to come up for consideration frequently
Shanti Devi the petitioner in SLP No 15093 of 1989 was the highest bidder at an auction sale of house property bearing No A 205 Defence Colony New Delhi con ducted on 29288 by the Tax Recovery Officer TRO for realising the income tax dues of its owner
Her bid was accepted and the sale confirmed on 1341988
On 1441988 a certificate of sale was issued by the TRO to the peti tioner
Under the relevant rules a copy of the certificate of sale should have been endorsed to the Sub Registrar but it was actually sent to the Sub Registrar on 1251988
The petitioner in SLP No 138 of 1990 purchased property bearing No 112 113 Gautam Nagar Delhi at an auction conducted by the Income tax department
A certificate of sale in their favour was issued on 2351988
A copy of the sale certifi cate was forwarded by the TRO to the Sub Registrar
The purchasers thereafter attempted to get the property registered by the Sub Registrar in their names
The Sub Registrar and the Collector of Stamps did not accede to this request apparently on the ground that this could not be done unless stamp duty was paid on the certificate of sale
On the petitioner s request the TRO also addressed a couple of letters to the Sub Registrar and Collector which may be referred to here
With his letter dated 1251988 to the former the TRO enclosed an extract from the Tax Recovery Inspectors Manual issued by the Income Tax department which reads as follows After confirmation of sale of immovable property a certificate in form ITCP 20 will be issued
The original of this sale certificate is liable for stamp duty and a further duty of Rs450 is also chargeable on the copy of the sale certificate to be forwarded to the Sub Registrar
These charges which may vary from State to State are to be borne by the auction purchaser
The original sale certificate thus issued will be the title for the property and it has the same value as a sale deed and it does not require registra tion by the purchaser
Thus the auction purchaser is saved expenses of 631 registration etc
This office itself will send a copy of the sale certificate for registration to the concerned Sub Registrar for making necessary entries in his registers underlining ours The Collector of Stamps was addressed directly by the TRO on 2991988 in relation to the Gautam Nagar property
In that letter the TRO stated that he had received legal advice that no stamp duty was payable on the certificate of sale
The attention of the Collector was drawn to the fact that a copy of the sale certificate had been sent to the Sub Registrar as required under Rule 21 of the Income tax Certificate Proceedings Rules ITCP rules which runs as follows 21
Every Tax Recovery Officer granting a certificate of sale to the purchaser of immovable property sold under the second schedule shall send a copy of such certificate to the Registering Officer concerned under the Indian  18 of 1908 within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the immovable property comprised in the certificate is situate
 The Collector was requested to inform the Sub Registrar accordingly to make necessary entries in the registers regarding the auction sale of the above immovable property on the basis of the copy of sale certificate sent to him
Apparently no further action was taken by the Sub Registrar or Collector in the matter and hence each of the petitioners applied to the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
The TRO the Collector the Sub Registrar Delhi Administration and the Municipal Corpo ration of Delhi were impleaded as respondents
The petition er prayed for a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ or order or direction to the respondents to register the cer tificate of sale and mutate the property in the name of the petitioner
The Delhi Administration and the Municipal Corporation were added as parties since they did not respond to the petitioner s request to effect mutation entries in the Corporation register presumably on account of the petitioner s failure to pay the transfer fees leviable as additional stamp duty under the Delhi Municipal Act
The writ petition was dismissed at the stage of admission by the Delhi High Court
The learned Judges passed a short order to the following effect Under section 29f read with Schedule I Article 18 and section 3 632 of the Stamp Act the liability to pay the Stamp Duty is of the purchaser unless there is a specific contract to the contrary in this regard
In this case the auction notice is silent as to who is to pay the Stamp Duty
In other words it does not create liability for the Government to pay the Stamp Duty
Hence the general provisions of law which are quoted above would be applicable
Dismissed
 Each of the petitioners has thereupon preferred this spe cial leave petition before this Court
On the above facts three different and separate ques tions arise for consideration 1 What is the action to be taken by the SubRegistrar when the copy of a certificate of sale is forwarded to him by the TRO 2 Is the vendee in a sale by the TRO entitled to ask the TRO to make entries regarding the transfer in his records on the basis of the copy of the certificate of sale sent to him by the TRO 3 What is the procedure to be followed by the Sub Registrar when the original certificate of sale is produced before him by the vendee The first of the above questions is directly answered by section 89 of the Indian 
This section provides for the procedure to be followed in certain situa tions in particular in cases where sales are effected either by courts under the Code of Civil Procedure or by revenue officers in pursuance of a revenue recovery certifi cate
Under section 892 every court granting a certificate of sale of immovable property under the Code of Civil Proce dure 1908 shall send a copy of such certificate to the registering officer within the local limits of whose juris diction the whole or any part of the immovable property comprised in such certificate is situate
Sub section 4 of section 89 makes a similar provision in respect of immovable properties sold by public auction by a revenue officer who issues a certificate of sale in pursuance of the auction
The sub sections further provide that when the copy of the certificate of sale is so received such registering offi cer snail file the copy or copies the case may be in his Book No 1
 So far as sales for recovery of income tax are concerned rule 21 of the ITCP rules quoted earlier makes a like provision requiring the concerned TRO to send a copy of he certificate of sale to the registering officer concerned
A doubt may arise whether the expression revenue officer  in section 84 4 of the includes a TRO and if not whether without an appropriate amend ment of section 89 2 or 4 of the  the mere framing of a rule by the Central Board of Direct Taxes under the Income tax Act 1961 will be 633 sufficient to oblige the registration officer to file a copy of the certificate of sale sent to him by the TRO in his Book No 1
In our opinion there is no need to read the term revenue officer  in any restricted sense and that it is wide and comprehensive enough to include the TRO who effects a compulsory sale for the recovery of an income tax demand
We are therefore clear that in the present case the registration officer has to act in terms of section 894 of the Indian read with rule 21 of the ITCP rules
This is to file the copy of the certificate of sale received by him from the TRO in his Book No 1
This takes us to the second question as to whether filing of a copy of the certificate in Book No 1 within the meaning of section 89 is tantamount to the registration of the document under the or it is a totally different concept
The registration of a document under the Act is conditional on the fulfilment of several requirements Ss 32 to 35
The document has to be presented for regis tration by a person competent to do so
The persons execut ing the document should appear before the Sub Registrar and admit or deny execution of the document
The Sub Registrar may conduct an enquiry where needed to satisfy himself as to the proper execution of the document
He will decide to admit the document to registration only if he is satisfied on this
What he has to do once he admits a document to registration is laid down in Ss 51 to 67
First he is bound to endorse full particulars and details of the regis tration on the document presented to him and also obtain the signature of every person presenting the document
He should then without delay copy the entire document in the appro priate book maintained for the purpose which in respect of non testamentary instruments relating to immovable property is Book No 1
The entries in each book nave to be consecu tively numbered year wise and corresponding entries should be contemporaneously made in current indices to be main tained in every office
The officer should affix his signa tures to the endorsements made in his presence and then endorse a certificate on the document that it is registered together with the registration particulars which shall be signed sealed and dated by him
The document is then re turned to the person presenting it for registration
The books and indices are available for public inspection and certified copies thereof are to be given to parties applying for them
This in brief is the process of registration
On the other hand the process of filing that is contem plated under the Act is somewhat different though the Act does interchange 634 the two expressions in some places
For instance section 512 itself refers to all documents or memoranda registered under section 89 being entered or filed in Book No 1
But there appear to be vital differences between the two processes i It is the original of a document that is registered whereas only copies or memoranda are filed ii The executant of a document which is required to be registered has to present it for registration and go through the attendant and subsequent processes described above
A copy to be filed under section 89 or memoranda that are filed under Ss 64 to 66 is simply transmitted to the con cerned Sub Registrar for being filed
Apparently the proce dure of presentation is dispensed with in regard to the latter because they are issued by public authorities dis charging their official duties
iii Additional particulars relevant to a document admitted to registration need to be got endorsed thereon from time to time as contemplated in Ss 58 and 59 but this rule does not apply to a copy or memorandum filed under the Act
iv When a document is registered the entirety of the document has to be copied out into the relevant book and the original document returned to the person who presents the document with necessary endorsements
This requirement is absent in the case of a copy or memorandum which is just filed
v Where a document is registered a certificate of regis tration has to be issued which will be admissible to prove the due registration of the document
There are thus some differences between the two pro ceedures and this aspect has been touched upon in some very early decisions under the Registration Act 1877 vide Fatteh Singh vs Daropadi 1908 Punj
Case No 142 Siraj un nissa vs Jan Muhammad  Masarat un nissa vs Adit Ram All 568 FB
Refer ence may also be made to Premier Vegetable P Ltd vs State AIR 1986 MP 258
We need not however consider for the purposes of this case whether filing and registration mean one and the same thing for all purposes and  what the legal effect of these differences is
For though the processes are different the purchaser at a court or revenue sale is under no disadvantage because of the lack of 635 registration
The certificate of sale itself not being a compulsorily registrable document vide section 172xii the transfer of title in his favour is not vitiated by the non registration of the certificate
The copy of the certificate filed in Book No 1 contains all the relevant details
These details are reflected in the indices maintained under section 55 which are open to inspection to all persons
We may point out here that section 552 only refers to memoranda filed but it seems clear particularly in the light of various State amendments that the index to Book No 1 should also contain the details of copies of document filed by him
These requirements are sufficient to ensure that any person in tending to purchase or deal with the property is put on notice about the principal contents of the certificate of sale provided he inspects the relevant book andor index
It is sufficient to say for the purposes of this case that all that the Sub Registrar required to do is to file the copy of the certificate in Book No 1 and no more
He does not have to copy out the certificate or make any other entries in Book No 1
We now come to the last question and that is whether the certificate of sale is liable to stamp duty and if so what the consequences are
The High Court has referred to section 3 section 29f and Article 18 of Schedule I to the Stamp Act
This provision applies in the absence of a contract to the con trary
Prima facie therefore the view taken by the High Court and there are other decisions also to the same ef fect is correct unless a contract to the contrary can be spelt out
The auction notice did not promise any exemption from stamp duty
The extract quoted earlier from the Depart mental Manual viz that both the certificate and copy are liable to stamp duty also renders it unlikely that any promise was given by the TRO at the time of sale that no stamp duty will be payable
However the TRO s letter to the Collector referring to the legal advice obtained by him strikes a somewhat inconsistent note
Even if there had been any such mention by the TRO or the auctioneer the question would arise whether it can be construed as a contract to the contrary binding on the Union for the purposes of section 29f of the Stamp Act
Sri Mehta requests that we may not now go into these questions but leave the issue to be decided as and when the petitioners seek to have the certificate of registration registered or introduced in evidence before any court or authority entitled to take evidence which is at present a remote contingency
There are two provisions in the Stamp Act which provide for the adjudication of stamp duty
Under section 31 it is open to the executants of any document at any stage but within the time limit set out in section 32 to produce a document before the Collector of Stamps and require him to 636 adjudicate on the question whether the document should bear any stamp duty
The Collector thereupon may adjudicate the stamp duty himself or refer the matter to the Chief Control ling Revenue Authority of the State
In turn it is open to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to refer the matter to the High Court for an authoritative decision Ss 32 and 56
This procedure could have been followed by the peti tioners if they wished to seek an answer to the question whether the certificate of sale is liable to stamp duty but they have not done it and the time limit under section 32 has run out
The other provision that may become applicable is section 33
Under this section if any document and this includes a certificate of sale is presented to the Registrar for registration and the Registrar is of opinion that it is a document which should bear stamp duty but that it has not been stamped it is his duty to impound the document and send it on to the Collector of Stamps for necessary adjudi cation section 38
This contingency has also not happened
The third contingency also provided for in section 33 is when a party wishes to rely upon the certificate of sale as a piece of evidence before a court or an authority entitled to take evidence
Such court or authority will also have to impound the document and shall not admit the same in evidence unless the stamp duty chargeable and the stipulated penalty are paid
This situation has not arisen so far but may arise at some time in future
It is unnecessary to anticipate the same and decide the issue
We shall therefore leave the issue of stamp duty to be adjudicated upon in the normal course as and when found necessary and express no views thereon at this stage
We should however like to deal with a contention raised in the grounds that even if the certificate of regis tration is sought to be presented for registration by the petitioners the Sub Registrar has no jurisdiction to refuse registration on the ground that the document is insuffi ciently stamped
As already pointed out section 172xii of the Registration Act makes it clear that the certificate of sale issued in a court sale or by a revenue officer does not need registration
Though this provision like section 89 relates only to a certificate of sale granted to the pur chaser of any property sold by public auction by a civil court or revenue officer for the same reasons as have been set out earlier we think that the certificate issued by the TRO is also covered by this provision
It is therefore clear that it is not obligatory on the purchaser of property in a tax recovery sale to get the certificate of sale regis tered in order to perfect his title
However if he presents the original certificate of sale to the Registration Officer for registration the Registration Officer will have to comply with the relevant statutory provisions in this re gard
However this situation has not arisen as yet 637 and it is unnecessary to anticipate it and decide the point
We therefore do not express any opinion thereon
This leaves for consideration the question in regard to the municipal transfer fee
No details have been placed before us on this issue
The payability of the municipal transfer fee perhaps depends upon the payability of stamp duty but our attention has not been invited to the relevant statutory provisions or their interpretation
The High Court has given no separate finding on this issue
We also express no opinion particularly since we are not expressing any opinion on the question as to whether Stamp Duty is payable on the certificate of sale or not
It will be open to the petitioners to contest this levy in other appropriate pro ceedings
For the above reasons we are of opinion that these appeals have to be allowed in part
The Sub Registrar is directed to file the copy of the certificate of sale re ceived by him from the TRO in his Book No 1 as required by section 894 of the Act read with rule 21 of the Income tax Certificate Proceedings Rules 1962
The petitioners are entitled to ask for nothing more
We express no opinion on the question as to whether any stamp duty or municipal transfer fees are payable in respect of the original certif icate of sale
The appeals are accordingly disposed of
There will be no order as to costs
NPV Appeals allowed partly


Summary:
The respondent landlady sought eviction of the appellant under section 121f of the MP Accommodation Control Act 1961 on the ground of bona fide requirement for continuing tailoring business of her son being carried on in a small room of the same premises
The trial court accepted the claim
The appellate court however allowed the appeal on the ground that the business of the landlady s son was very poor and not growing at all and therefore the accommoda tion in his possession was not at all insufficient
The High Court found that the need of the landlady was genuine and bona fide
Dismissing the tenant s appeal this Court HELD The landlady whose husband at one time had a flourishing business was now in dire circumstances
To keep both the ends meet the family depended not only on meagre income from rent and tailoring shop but the landlady had even to part with possession of another room of the same house adjacent to the shop in dispute to another tenant
Financial difficulty apart the tenant admittedly had two shops each with spacious accommodation facing the road while the landlady s son had one with comparatively small and irregular dimension in a lane in most unhygienic conditions with not enough place for 3 or 4 machines with two or three helpers what to say of trial room or other facilities for customers
The pathetic and pitiable condition of the land lady with no injury 40 the tenant except that he shall be required to carry on business from one shop only do not call for interference with the order of the High Court
569A E