IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 16560 of 2005(U) -------------------------- RCP.83/2002 of PRL.M.C.,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.S.MEENA, NOW RESIDING AT DENNY COTTAGE, CEMETRY JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.T.N.SUKUMARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- L. USHA RANI, KAUSTHUBHAM, KUNNUMPURAM,NEAR AYURVEDA COLLEGE PO. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.L.NARASIMHAN FOR R1 SRI.N.KRISHNA PRASAD FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.16560/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF RENT AGREEMENT DATED 20/10/2001 PREPARED BY THE RESPONDENT WHICH WAS SIGNED by the PETITIONER. P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/08/2003 IN R.C.P.MP.83/2002 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P3 : COPY OF the MEMORANDUM OF RENT CONTROL APPEAL IN R.C.A.NO.59/2003 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/09/2004 IN I.A.NO.1949/2004 IN R.C.A.NO.59/03 PASSED BY THE IIND ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY. P5 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30/09/2004 OF THE IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P6 : COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION DATED NIL FILED by the RESPONDENT BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R.C.P. NO.83/2002. P7 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 09/12/2004 SENT FROM THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE PETITIONER IN R.C.P. NO.83/2002. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R(a) : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19/08/2002 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. R(b) : COPY OF the COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY PETITIONER OBJECTING THE ADJUDICATION FOR GRANT OF INJUNCTION IN I.A.7556/02 IN O.S.1263/02. R(c) : COPY OF THE ORDER MAKING THE INTERIM INJUNCTION ABSOLUTE (I.A.NO.7556/02 IN O.S.NO.1263/02 DATED 08/11/2002. R(d) : COPY OF THE CRIME NO.246/02 OF VANCHIYOOR POLICE STATION. R(e) : COPY OF THE PETITION RCP 83/02 DATED 22/11/2002. R(f) : COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN RCP NO.83/02. R(g) : COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND IN RCP 83/02 DATED 22/05/2003. R(h) : COPY OF THE MEMO PRAYING FOR ACCEPTING THE RENT INSUFFICIENTLY STAMPED DEED DATED 10/06/2003. R(i) : COPY OF THE PETITION TO ALLOW THE RECOVERY OF STAMP DUTY PAID DATED 02/07/2003. WP(C) No.16560/2005 R(j) : COPY OF THE RENT DEED DATED 20/10/2001. R(k) : COPY OF THE ORDER ON RCP NO.83/02 DATED 29/08/2003 CORRECTING THE COST AS ADVOCATE FEE AND STAMP DUTY PAID. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ------------------------- WP(C) No.16560 of 2005 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 21st day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. The writ petition is filed by tenant of the building for quashing part of the order of the Rent Control Court directing recovery of differential stamp duty and penalty from petitioner. The respondent, who was the landlord, filed application for eviction of tenant and since stamp duty was inadequate, the Rent Control Court directed the respondent to remit differential stamp duty and penalty for pursuing the rent control application. The respondent immediately remitted the amount and prosecuted the application which led to favourable orders to him ordering eviction of the petitioner. Even though appeal was filed against the eviction order by the petitioner, petitioner without pressing the appeal gave delivery of possession of the building to the respondent. Since petitioner did not pursue the appeal, the cost including stamp duty and penalty thereon is recoverable from the petitioner is the case of the respondent. Challenge is against the execution proceedings for recovery of stamp duty and penalty thereon. Even though learned WP(C) No.16560/2005 -2- counsel for the respondent has relied on Sections 30 and 43(3) of the Stamp Act, we feel the matter is still in the discretion of the Court and the same only forms part of cost of litigation. Considering the fact that petitioner did not press the appeal against the eviction order and vacated the premises voluntarily without the requirement of respondent pressing execution proceedings, we feel, there is no justification to order cost in the form of recovery of stamp duty and penalty thereon from the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed quashing Ext.P2 to the extent authorising recovery of stamp duty and penalty from petitioner. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE) jg