9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (10) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intended to reside in his oldage in the suit property. Eviction was also claimed on various other grounds but those are not miterial for the purpose of this second appeal. The appellant in the written statement denied that the respondent was the owner of the property and alleged that the premises were not let to him specifically for residential purpose and he had the right to use the premises for all purpoes. It was also denied that the respondent bona fide required the suit premises or that he had no other reasonably suitable accommodation in Delhi. It was alleged that the respondent was a permanent resident of U.K.. holding British Passport and settled in London for the last several years, that his family and children own 2-3 houses in U K., that the desire of the respondent was either abnormal increase in rent or to dispose of the property after getting it vacated, that previously an eviction petition on the ground of bona fide requirement was filed which was dismissed on 19th January, 1977, In the replication it was pleaded that the premises were let to the respondent for residential purposes and the same were situated in residential colony, that the appellant had no right to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt however is that the payment of stamp duty and penalty docs not make document executed out of India admissible in evidence after the expiry of three months from the date of its receipt in India. He relies upon Section 31 and 32 of the Indian Stamp Act. But in my opinion Section 32 of the said Act is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. Sections 31 and 32 of the Indian Stamp Act are as under:- 31(1)When any instrument, whether executed or not and whether previously stamped or not, is brought to the Collector, and the person bringing it applies to have the opinion of that officer as to the duty (if any) with which it is chargeable, and pays a fee of such amount (not exceeding five rupees and not less than (fifty naye paisa) as the Collector may in each case direct, the Collector shall determine the duty (if any) with which, in his judgment the instrument is chargeable. (2) For this purpose the Collector may require to be furnished with an abstract of the instrument, and also with such affidavit or other evidence as he may deem necessary to prove that all the facts and circumstances affecting the chargeability of the instrument with duty, or the amount of the dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovides for adjudication of proper stamp duty on a document and for that purpose the document is sent to the Collector to obtain his opinion. Section 32 provides for a certificate to be endorsed by the Collector in the circumstances mentioned therein. Proviso (b) t0 Section 32 debars the Collector from certifying by endorsement any instrument executed out of India and brought to him after the expiration of three months from the date of its first receipt in India. In other words, it means that if a person wants to obtain a certificate from the Collector on any document executed out of India he has to send it to the Collector before the expiry of three months of its receipt in India. In the instant case it is no body's case that anybody wanted to have endorsement from the Collector within the meaning of Sections 31 or 32 of the said Act. Further under Section 33 of the said Act any person having authority to record evidence is entitled to impound the document if the same was not duly stamped. Section 35 provides for admission of a document in evidence after payment of the stamp duty and the penalty. Section 39 provides that admission of a document in evidence shall not be questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the property was to be used for all purposes was upon the appellant. He admitted that he has used the property for residential purposes from the inception of the tenancy. He has not discharged the onus that he has used or can use the property for any purpose other than residence. When the landlord pleads that the property was let for residential purpose and the tenant in reply pleads that the premises could be used for all purposes, the onus would be upon the tenant to show that he had a right to use the premises for purposes other than residence. It is admitted by him that he had always been using the premises for residential purposes. The Additional Controller and the Tribunal have held that the premises were let for residential purposes. This finding is based on evidence and therefore cannot be disturbed in second appeal. It cannot be said that the finding is perverse. (6) Next the learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no proof that the respondent was the owner of the property in suit. The respondent has appeared as A.W. 1 and has deposed that the house in question belongs to him and that Ex. A.W. 1/1 was the lease deed with respect to the plot over whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent's daughters are settled in England and therefore he would not like to settle in Delhi. The respondent has categorically stated that he and his wife have retired from their profession/service. The respondent was practicing as a barrister and he has deposed that he has stopped practicing as a barrister. His wife was in service and she has retired. The respondent was aged 71 years when he filed the petition in January 1978. If the daughters of the respondent are settled in England it cannot be said that the respondent and his wife should also settle in '.England. Both of them desire to live in their own country. There is nothing on the record to show that the respondent and his wife would not occupy the suit premises after getting the same vacated. In any case sufficient protection has been provided by Section 19 of the Act. After getting the premises vacated the landlord is required to occupy the same within two months of obtaining possession and to retain the same for a period of at least three years. The landlord is not entitled to relet or transfer the said property. In case the respondent does not occupy the premises within two months of obtaining possession fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
