Dr.S.Meena vs L. Usha Rani on 21 August, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 16560 of 2005(U)


1. DR.S.MEENA,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. L. USHA RANI,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.N.SUKUMARAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.L.NARASIMHAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN

 Dated :21/08/2008

 O R D E R
       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