IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2009 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 18418 of 2006(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE KERALA VYAPARI VYAVASAYI EKOPANA SAMITHI, KOTHAMANGALAM UNIT, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT K.A. KURIAKOSE, AGED 60, S/O. K.C. AUGUSTINE. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. R1 AND R3 BY G.P. SRI. P.K. RAVIKRISHNAN ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN FOR R2 SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN FOR R2 SRI.K.T.THOMAS FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF LICENCE DEED DATED 4.5.2000 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND A MEMBER OF PETITIONER. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 29.8.1998 IN OP 12856 OF 1998 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DTED 11.11.2005 IN WPC 31430 OF 2005 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 6.6.2006 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 18418 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging the demand of second respondent for remittance of stamp duty at full rate applicable for lease of the building taken by the petitioner from the second respondent. Counsel for the petitioner relied on Exts. P2 and P3 whereunder this Court has made some temporary arrangement for payment of stamp duty pending judgment by Supreme Court in some matters stated to be pending. I do not think there can be any dispute in this case because admittedly petitioner has taken the building from the second respondent on lease and by stating the lease as licence petitioner or the Municipality cannot violate provisions of the Stamp Act. It is a settled position that building given on hire with exclusive possession is lease, no matter whether it is termed as licence or not by the parties. Therefore Municipality rightly demanded stamp duty at the rate applicable for lease from the petitioner. W.P. is therefore de void of any merit and is 2 dismissed directing the Municipality to get the document executed in stamp paper in terms of provisions of the Stamp Act applicable to lease without any delay. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3