Stamping, residential letting and bona fide need: foreign-executed document admitted, eviction upheld on concurrent findings.

An instrument executed outside India and insufficiently stamped could be impounded and admitted in evidence on payment of the proper duty and penalty; the bar in the proviso to Section 32 of the Indian Stamp Act did not prevent that course, and admissibility could not later be questioned after admission. The premises were found to have been let for residential use on the basis of the pleadings, lease deed and admitted occupation. Ownership was proved through the landlord's testimony and the lease deed, with no effective rebuttal. Bona fide need under rent control law was upheld on concurrent findings that the landlord and his wife had retired and wished to reside in India, with no substantial question of law for interference in second appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an instrument executed outside India and not stamped within the prescribed period could nevertheless be impounded and admitted in evidence on payment of stamp duty and penalty; (ii) Whether the premises were let for residential purposes; (iii) Whether the respondent had established ownership of the premises; (iv) Whether the respondent's need for the premises was bona fide under the rent control law.

Issue (i): Whether an instrument executed outside India and not stamped within the prescribed period could nevertheless be impounded and admitted in evidence on payment of stamp duty and penalty.

Analysis: The power of attorney had been executed in London and had not been stamped within three months of its receipt in India. The objection was raised against its admissibility. The document was impounded, and the required stamp duty and penalty were paid. Under the scheme of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the power to impound an insufficiently stamped document and to admit it in evidence after payment of the proper duty and penalty is distinct from the Collector's power to endorse instruments under Section 32. The bar in the proviso to Section 32 did not apply to the present situation, and once the document was admitted in evidence, its admissibility could not be questioned later.

Conclusion: The power of attorney was validly admitted in evidence and the objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the premises were let for residential purposes.

Analysis: The pleadings, the nature of the plot, the lease deed describing it as a residential plot, and the admitted use of the building as a residence supported the finding that the premises were let for residential purposes. The tenant's broad assertion of a right to use the premises for all purposes was unsupported by evidence. The question was one of fact, and the concurrent finding of the authorities below was not shown to be perverse.

Conclusion: The premises were held to have been let for residential purposes.

Issue (iii): Whether the respondent had established ownership of the premises.

Analysis: The respondent entered the witness box and deposed that the property belonged to him and that the lease deed related to the plot on which he had erected the building. There was no effective cross-examination on ownership. The authorities below were justified in treating the respondent's testimony, together with the lease deed, as sufficient proof of ownership. The objection that the executant of the lease deed had not been examined was inapplicable on the facts.

Conclusion: The respondent's ownership of the premises stood proved.

Issue (iv): Whether the respondent's need for the premises was bona fide under the rent control law.

Analysis: The respondent and his wife had retired, the respondent had ceased practice, and the property in question was his only property in Delhi. The desire to reside in India in old age was accepted as genuine. The court also noted the statutory protection available if the landlord failed to occupy the premises after eviction. The authorities below had concurrently found bona fide requirement, and that finding involved no question of law warranting interference in second appeal.

Conclusion: The respondent's requirement was bona fide.

Final Conclusion: The eviction order was upheld because the statutory objections failed and the essential ingredients for eviction on personal residential were established on concurrent findings of fact.

Ratio Decidendi: A document executed outside India that is insufficiently stamped may be impounded and admitted in evidence on payment of the proper stamp duty and penalty, and a concurrent factual finding of bona fide personal residential need will not ordinarily be disturbed in second appeal absent perversity or a substantial question of law.

---