L.DORESWAMY Vs. KRISHNAPRASAD A.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in HRC.No.49/2016 on the file of Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, produced a lease deed to be marked. The petitioner in the said case objected to its marking on the ground that the said document was not registered and not properly stamped. The learned trial judge heard both sides on this issue and came to conclusion that the said document was liable to be stamped according to Article 30(I)(i) of Karnataka Stamp Act and by its order dated 1.2.2017 directed the respondent to pay the stamp duty accordingly. This is the order challenged in this revision petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that if the document is perused, it is found that the petitioner herein paid Rs.10,00,000/- to the respondent herein at the time when he occupied the petition schedule premises as a security deposit. The period of lease was three years commencing from 10.09.2009. This amount was refundable after completion of three years without any interest. Therefore the respondent had no claim over the said amount. The payment that the petitioner made to the respondent was not towards rent or money advanced by way of rent so as to say that Article 30 of the Stamp Act is attracted. He argues that in a situation like this, Stamp duty is payable according to Article 47 of the Karnataka Stamp Act. Though the document is captioned as Lease Deed, if its contents are seen, it cannot be called a lease deed, rather it is just a bond and therefore the stamp duty paid is sufficient and it is in accordance with Article 47 of the Karnataka Stamp Act. In support of his argument he has placed reliance on some of the decided cases viz., (1) Board of Revenue Vs. A.M. Ansari [AIR 1976 SC 1813], (2) Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Delhi Vs. Marshall Produce Brokers Co. Pvt. Ltd., [AIR 1980 Delhi 249], (3) Chief Controlling Authority, Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamps Vs. M/s. Texas Instruments India Ltd., [AIR 2004 Kar.70] and (4) Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Vs. M.V. Chandrashekar and Others [AIR 1985 Kar. 61].

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent argued that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial court. The argument of the petitioner that Article 47 is applicable is fallacious. The respondent before this court is the petitioner in the trial court and claiming the petitioner herein to be his tenant he has initiated eviction proceeding. The petitioner herein is contesting the eviction petition. He produced the lease deed said to have come into existence between the parties. The said document shows that the petitioner paid Rs.10,00,000/- to the respondent for occupying the petitioner's premises. The amount that he paid at the inception was nothing but rent paid in advance. It was not a premium. It is true that Rs.10,00,000/- did not carry interest, but it was the consideration that the respondent received for allowing the petitioner to occupy his premises. Merely for the reason that Rs.10,00,000/- is refundable to the petitioner without interest, it cannot be said that there was no lease and that the document is security bond.