Rajiv Sharma, J. - (1.) HEARD Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Sanjay Sarin, Standing Counsel.
(2.) THE common issue involved in these writ petitions is whether the agreement entered into by the petitioner -company with the land owners for installation of telecommunication equipments for consideration of rent on their premises is a 'licence' or 'lease' and as such all these writ petitions are being decided by a common order. The Deputy Commissioner of Stamp Act has held in the impugned order dated 28.2.2008 that since there was a clause in the agreement which provided that the lease could be renewed between the parties on mutually agreed terms and conditions, therefore, the lease could not be deemed to be for a fixed period as mentioned in the agreement but it would be rather for an indefinite period in view of the provision contained in explanation (2) to Article 35 of Schedule 1 -B which provides inter -alia for a fixed period with a provision allowing the lessee to hold thereafter for an indefinite period, shall be deemed for the purpose of this article to be a lease. Therefore, the Stamp Duty is payable in accordance with the provision of Article 35 (a) (VI) of Schedule I -B of Stamp Act.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved by the order dated 28.2.2008 of the opposite party No. 3, petitioner -company preferred an appeal under section 56 of the Stamp Act before the Commissioner, who has upheld the order of the opposite party No. 3 by its order dated 24.3.2011 insofar as the application of provision of 35(a)(VI) of Article 35 of Schedule I -B is concerned, both the authorities held that clause pertaining to renewal in the agreement renders the lease to be a lease for an indefinite period and as such the petitioner is liable to pay stamp duty meant for indefinite period.;