IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2010 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 OP (RC).No. 1005 of 2010(O) --------------------------- RCP.126/2009 of III ADDL.M.C.EKM (RENT CONTROL) .................... PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. SASIDHARAN.O.G., AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.O.GANGADHARAN, KANNAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, POOTHOTTA.P.O., MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. RAJEESH, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.RAVEENDRANATHAN, KANNAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, POOTHOTTA.P.O., MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAJEEV KOYICKAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. T.K.ARAVINDAKSHAN, AGED 70 YEARS, UNNIYATHARA THUNDIYIL, POONITHURA VILLAGE, PONNURUNNI DESOM, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. T.K.BHAVANI @ T.K.BHAMINI, AGED 68 YEARS, UNNIYATHARA THUNDIYIL, POONITHURA VILLAGE, PONNURUNNI DESOM, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.N.P.SAMUEL SRI.K.P.SURESH KUMAR THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------ O.P.(RC).No. 1005 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this original petition submitted under Article 227 by the tenants respondents is Ext.P6 order passed by the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam, dismissing an application filed by the petitioners for admittance of Ext.P3 in evidence. 2. In this original petition, Ext.P6 is challenged on various grounds and we have heard the submissions of Sri.Rajeev Koickal, learned counsel for the petitioners and those of Sri.K.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents who has taken notice as directed by us. On going through Ext.P6, it is seen that the learned rent control court dismissed the petition stating mainly three reasons. 3. The first reason is that the document is not the original and only is a photo copy . The second reason is that the document is not even a complete photo copy, as the photo O.P.R.C.No.1005/2010 2 copy of the reverse side of the original is not seen. The third reason is that the document, which purports to be a lease agreement containing an acknowledgment regarding a substantial amount paid as security, is insufficiently stamped. According to the learned counsel, if opportunity is given, the petitioners are ready to pay the deficit stamp duty, which is payable construing the photo copy to be original itself, and the requisite penalty also. According to the learned counsel, Ext.P3 is the photostat copy of the original . The original was retained by the previous landlord. The learned counsel would further submit that the photostat copy of only the facing pages of the original document was taken due to the ignorance of the petitioners. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents would oppose granting any relief to the petitioners. According to him, the rent is heavily in arrears and the filing of the petition was yet another method adopted by the petitioners for protracting the final disposal of the rent control petition, which is instituted on valid grounds. 5. A reading of Rule 11(8) of the Buildings(Lease & Rent O.P.R.C.No.1005/2010 3 Control) Rules will indicate that it is not necessary that the rent control court should be governed by the strict rules in the matter of recording of evidence. Ext.P3 document purports to be the photo copies of the facing three pages of a lease deed executed between the former landlord and the petitioners tenants. The learned rent control court is correct in stating that Ext.P3 is an incomplete document in the sense that photostat copies of the reverse side of the stamp papers are not available. The view of the learned rent control court that, the document even if the same is construed as the original cannot be admitted for deficiency of stamp duty and non payment of penalty, is quite correct. We feel that, being a rent control proceeding, the marking of the document can be permitted subject to payment of requisite stamp duty and penalty by the petitioners who wants document to be put in evidence. 5. We direct the petitioners to pay deficit stamp duty construing Ext.P3 as a lease agreement and also as a document acknowledging payment of a further amount of Rs.1,25,000/- as security. We also direct them further to pay penalty as per the rules. Once there is compliance with the above directions, the O.P.R.C.No.1005/2010 4 learned rent control court will permit marking of the above document. We make it clear that mere marking will not amount to acceptance of the document as evidence ( as proof of the recitals contained in the document). In short, the relevancy and authenticity of the document marked is a matter to be decided by the learned rent control court at the time of appreciation of the evidence. 6. There was some controversy at the Bar as to what is the contract rent payable. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is Rs.400/- per month. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is Rs.1300/- per month. We accept the petitioners' version and direct that this order will operate only if the petitioners pay rent for 12 months calculated at the rate of Rs.1300/- per month within a period of three weeks from today. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE dpk