K. C. Agrawal, J. - (1.) THIS is a reference made under S.57 of the Stamp Act by the Board of Revenue, U.P. The question referred are : "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances stated above, the document Annexure-'A' was an agreement to let in consideration of Rs. 50,000/- and as such chargeable to duty as a lease under Article 35(b), Sch.1-B of the Stamp Act as amended from time to time in its application to Uttar Pradesh ?
(2.) IN case the document in question is not held to fall under Art.35(b) of Sch.I-B, what stamp duty, if any, was chargeable on it ?" 2. The Municipal Board, Budaun, was the owner of certain market known as Sabzi Mandi. The right to hold the market for the period 1-4-1968 to 31-3-1969 was auctioned on 8-3-1968. Four bids were offered. The highest bid for Rs. 50,000/- was of Ram Swarup, Jagdish Lal, Jiwan Lal and Kishan Lal jointly. They signed the bid sheet in token of acceptance of their offer. The highest bid was accepted by the President of the Municipal Board, Budaun. The contractors also recorded their acceptance of the terms and conditions of the auction. The terms and conditions incorporated in the bid sheet were as under : 1. The market was to be let out for one year, i.e., 1-4-1968 to 31-3-1969. 2. The total bid money was to be paid on the completion of the auction. Within a week of the acceptance of the auction, an agreement was to be executed. The Chairman, Municipal Board, was authorised to cancel the Theka for failure of the highest bidder to abide by any of the terms and conditions and the bidder was liable to pay any loss incurred by the Board by re-auctioning the said market. 3. The Inspector of Stamps and Registration, Bareilly Circle, who had been appointed as Collector for the purposes of Ss.33 and 40 of the Stamp Act, examined the said document in the office of the Municipal Board, Budaun, and treating it to be an agreement to let, impounded it and imposed duty of Rs. 2,250/- and an equal amount of penalty under S.40 of the said Act. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid imposition, the contractors filed an application before the Board of Revenue under S.56(1) of the Stamp Act.
(3.) THE case of the contractors was that the document in question was not an agreement, hence was not dutiable under Art.35(b) of Sch.I-B. On the contrary, the view of the Board was that since the document contained all the essential conditions necessary for an agreement to let, as such, Art.35(b) was clearly attracted. The question, therefore, that needs determination by us is whether the document in question could be held to be an agreement to let and, as such, was dutiable under Art.35(b) of Sch.I-B. For deciding this question, it may be necessary to refer to some of the relevant provisions of law. The relevant portions of Art.35 of Sch.I-B read as under : "35. Lease, including an under-lease or sub-lease and any agreement to let or sublet - (a) * * * * * (b) where the lease is granted for a fine or premium or for money advanced and where no rent is reserved.";