EAST INDIA HOTELS LTD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the lessee, alleging inter alia that by lease deed Dt. 17-12-1992 one Lake Palace Hotels & Motels (P) Ltd., hereafter referred to as the lessor, the petitioner took on lease the land mentioned in Para 6 of the rent deed for a term of 72 years. The rent stipulated to be paid during the lease period has been reproduced in Para 6 of the writ petition. The lease was obtained for the purpose of constructing, and operating hotel/motels. The construction was to be in conformity with the rules and regulations, and other bye-laws. The cost of the construction was to be incurred by the petitioner. Then, in Clause 15 of the lease deed, copy whereof has been produced vide Annexure-1, it was stipulated that lessee shall keep deposited with the lessor an advance lease deposit of Rs. 2.5 Crores, on the terms and conditions mentioned therein, which include the mode of the receipt by the lessor. The amount was to carry simple interest @ 9% per annum, and repayment is to be made in ten yearly instalments of Rs. 35 lacs each, to commence from 1-5-2055. Then, in Clause 15.4 it was undertaken by the lessor to pay promptly the interest and the yearly instalments as and when due, failing which lessee was entitled to adjust the installments and interest due from the lease rent. Likewise, it was also stipulated in Clause 15.5 that if for any reason the lease stands terminated prior to the date fixed, then the entire principal amount or any balance thereof due will be payable forthwith against surrendering of the lease property.

(2.) According to the petitioner, this lease deed was submitted for registration on 17-12-1992, along with a covering letter accompanied with legal opinion, a decision of the Delhi High Court, in Chief Controlling Revenue Authority v. M.P. Broker Company, reported in AIR 1980 Delhi 249. However, vide Annexure-3 dated 17-12-1992 the Sub Registrar (respondent No. 4) informed, that the petitioner must deposit a further stamp duty of Rs. 25 lacs on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2.5 Crores, as per Article 35 (c) of the Schedule to the Indian Stamp Act, within 15 days, failing which the lease deed shall be produced before the competent authority, as inadequately stamped. According to the petitioner, representations were made vide Annexures 4 and 5. The petitioner thereafter again submitted representation vide Annexure-7 dt. 4-1-1993, contending, that the amount of Rs. 2.5 Crores does not fall within "the money advanced" within the meaning of Article 35 (c). Then, vide Annexure 8 dt. 1-1-1993, the petitioner was informed that the petitioner is liable to pay the duty amount of Rs. 35 lacs, and the demand of Sub Registrar was conveyed to be correct Likewise vide annexure-9 dt. 14-1-1993 the petitioner was called upon to pay the aforesaid amount, failing which reference shall be made under Section 47-A of the Act.

(3.) Assailing these actions, the writ petition has been filed inter alia contending, that the stamp duty has also been paid, as leviable on the basis of Article 35 (a) of the Schedule, to the extent of Rs. 48,06,000/- + Rs. 50/- towards security bond. It is also contended that the term "money advanced" in Article 35 (c) is to be read ejusdem generis, with the expression "fine" or "premium", and all these three expressions "fine" or "premium" or money advanced" connote payments of money in addition to rent reserved, in consideration of grant of the lease, to the lessee, and are essentially non-refundable, which is not the case in the case in hand, as the amount is refundable, and is to carry interest @ 9%. It is contended that in view of the above, the threatened action under Section 47-A is wholly unsustainable. With these grounds Annexures 3, 8 and 9 are sought to be quashed, and a restrain is claimed against the respondents from raising any demand for any stamp duty for the purpose of registration of lease deed.