VINAY CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY HYDERABAD Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND STAMPS ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference under S. 57 (1) of the Indian Stamp Act involves the interpretation of Cl. (5) of the amended lease deed filed by M/s. Vinay Construction and Development Co., Hyderabad, for adjudication under S. 31 of the Indian Stamp Act (hereinafter called the Stamp Act) of the Collector of Stamps.

(2.) The Collector of Stamps, viz., the Inspector-General of Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh, had by his letter, dated 25-6-1964 referred the several matters arising out of the lease deed for an authoritative opinion of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, viz., the Board of Revenue, under Section 56 (2) of the Stamp Act. The lease was for 55 years at an annual rent of Rs. 36,000 and under Cls.7 and 12, municipal taxes and insurance premium were payable by the lessees. Under the terms of the lease, a sum of Rs. 40,000 was to be paid as advance and the lease is to commence from the date the lessor puts the lessees in vacant possession of the premises at 6-1-1081 and 6-1-1082, Lakdika-pul, Hyderabad. The rent reserved was payable in quarterly instalments of Rs. 9,000 each the first instalment to commence from one year after the lessees are put in vacant possession of the premises; and out of the amount of Rs. 40,000 paid as advance, Rupees 3,000 per quarter is to be adjusted towards rent from the date the lessees have to pay the quarterly instalments of rent. Clause 5 of the lease deed is as follows:-

(3.) In the reference to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, the Inspector-General of Registration and Stamps had expressed the view that the lease deed which is for an annual rental of Rs. 36,000 and for an advance of Rs.40,000 is chargeable with duty under Articles 31 (a) (vi) and 31 (c) read with Art. 20 of Sch. I-A of the Stamp Act as applicable to Andhra Pradesh. He has also expressed a doubt whether the investment of Rs. 6 lakhs by the lessees can be treated as premium and stamp duty charged on it in addition to that chargeable on the annual rent reserved and the advance paid. The order of reference by the Board discloses that arguments were addressed by the Advocate for the lessee and the Government Pleader on the question whether the amount of Rs. 6 lakhs which is required to be spent on new structures on the premises leased during the lease term is a premium within the meaning of S. 105 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Government Pleader argued before it that it is not and supported the Advocate for the lessees on the point that it is only chargeable with a duty of Rs. 1.50 under Art. 5 (c) of Sch. I-A of the Stamp Act, as an agreement not otherwise provided for. The Board, however, was