H.SURESH, J. - (1.) The petitioners had filed a Civil Suit bearing No. 1040 of 1968 in the Court of Small Causes, Pune, as against the respondent herein for recovery of possession of certain premises under section 13(1)-(hh) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as "the Bombay Reny Act"). The trial Court decreed the suit and the decree was confirmed by the Appellate Court. The petitioners obtained possession of the premises and after giving suitable undertaking constructed a new building. As required under the law, the respondent was given one tenement in that new building. It appears that there was some delay in handing over possession of the new tenement and, therefore, the respondent had taken certain contempt proceeding. However, during the pendency of the said proceeding, the petitioners handed over to the respondent the possession of the new tenement and a receipt of possession dated March 15, 1980 came to be passed by the respondent.
(2.) Thereafter the petitioners filed another suit being Civil Suit No. 1245 of 1982 in the Court of Small Causes, Pune, as against the respondent for possession of the said tenement on the ground of arrears of rent. The suit was decreed in the favour of the petitioners on February 6, 1986. The respondent thereafter preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 605 of 1986 in the District Court, Pune. During the pendency of this appeal, the petitioners filed an application for production of additional evidence. The petitioners application was allowed by the District Court and the matter was remanded back to the Court of Small Causes, Pune, for recording additional evidence. The petitioners produced the said receipt of possession dated March 15, 1980, referred to above. The respondent raised an objection as to the admissibility of the said receipt on the ground that the said document is a lease deed and that it has not been properly stamped. The learned Judge heard both the sides and finally passed an order dated August 20, 1987 whereby he held that the said receipt is a lease deed for an indefinite period and the document has not been stamped as required by the law and the document will have to be impounded and he directed that the document in question be sent to the Collector of Pune to recover deficit stamp duty and penalty, in all amounting to Rs. 18,700/- from the petitioners. It is against this order the petitioners have preferred the present civil revision application.
(3.) The respondent has not chosen to appeal in this matter. However, it appears that the learned Judge, when he issued Rule, also directed that a notice be given to the Government Pleader. That is how Kum. Geeta Shastri, Assistant Government Pleader, appeared before me and made submissions.;