R SUDHARANI Vs. C KRISHNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has raised the challenge to the order, dated 30.07.2009 (Annexure - M) passed by the Court of the City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH -28) in O.S No. 8733/2005 directing the petitioner to pay the duty and penalty of Rs. 2,51,075/ -.

(2.) THE subject -matter of this petition is the liability to pay the duty and penalty on the agreement of lease, dated 29.04.2001. The said agreement is executed by the first respondent -plaintiff in favour of the second respondent (the first defendant). A perusal of the said agreement would reveal that the monthly rent agreed upon is Rs. 5,500/ -, and the lease is for a period of eleven months with a provision for the renewal on fresh terms. The advance amount agreed upon is Rs. 2,00,000/ -, which amount is liable to be repaid to the tenant/lessee at the time of vacating the schedule premises. The Trial Court's office has calculated the amounts as follows:

(3.) SRI B. Vijay Shetty, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that what is attracted to the instant case is only Article 30(1)(a)(i) which prescribe the payment of the same duty as a bond (Article No. 12) for the total amount of rent payable under such lease, where the lease purports to be for a term of less than one year. He submits that the Article 30(2)(c) has no application where no fine or premium or money in addition to the rent reserved is given. The sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ - is given only by way of security deposit, which is not adjustable towards the rent or rent -arrears. He has also relied on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of The Chief Controlling Authority v. M/s. Texas Instruments India Limited reported in : ILR 2003 Kar 4386. Its Headnotes (B) and (C) are extracted herein below: