IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reservedon: 19^^May, 2008 Date oforder: 2"^^ July,2008 LPA No. 380/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal & Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates versus GARIMAAGGRAWAL .Respondent Through Mr. Sanjay Goswamy and Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocates for the Respondents. Ms. Iram Majid and Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocates for Respondent GNCTD. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER This appeal is dismissed in terms of the common judgment of 2nd July 2008 0 passedin LPA No. 319 of 2007 titled ^'MunicipalCorporationof Delhi v. N.K. Gupta" and connected matters. Registry is directed to place on record a copy of the judgment passed in LPA No. 319 of 2007. July 02, 2008 dn CHIEF JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR, J. Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified , r- IN THE HIGH COURTOF DELHI:NEW DELHI \7 LPANo.319 of 2007 Reservedon: 19^*^ May, 2008 Date ofjudgment;July 02, 2008 MUNICIPAL CORI'ORATION OF DELHI ..... Appellant Tlirough: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates versus N.K. GUPTA Respondent ThroughMr. SanjayGoswamyand Mr. AjayKumar, y\dvocatesfor the Respondents. Ms. Iram Majid and Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocates for RespondentGNCTD. With LPA Noe 373/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONOF DELHI Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate ]VIr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates versus ^ VARDHMANPROPERTIES Respondent Through Mr. Sanjay Goswamy and Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocates for the Respondents. Ms. Iram Majid and Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocates for RespondentGNCTD. LPA No. 374/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONOF DELHI Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates versus LPA No.319/2007 Page 1 of 25 KEY POINT Respondent ThroughMl'. SanjayGoswamyand Mi*. Ajay Kumar, Advocatesforthe Respondents. Ms. Iram Majid andMs. ZubedaBegum,Advocates for Respondent GNCTD. LPA No. 376/2007 MUNICIPALCORPORATIONOF DELHI Appellant Tlirough: Mr.H.S.Phoolka,SeniorAdvocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates versus K.K. ENTERPRISES Respondent ThroughMr. SanjayGoswamyand Mr. AjayKumar, Advocatesfor the Respondents. Ms. IramMajidand Ms. ZubedaBegum,Advocates for RespondentGNCTD. LPA No. 377/2007 MUNICIPALCORPORATIONOF DELffl Appellant Through: Mr.H.S.Phoolka,SeniorAdvocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates v.,^ versus VARDHMANPROPERTIES Respondent ThroughMl-. SanjayGoswamyand Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocatesfor theRespondents. Ms. IraniMajidand Ms. ZubedaBegum,Advocates for Respondent GNCTD. LPA No. 378/2007 MUNICIPALCORPORATIONOF DELHI .....Appellant Tlirough: Mr.H.S.Phoolka, SeniorAdvocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates versus LPANo.319/2007 Page2of25 K.K. ENTERPRISES Respondent ThroughMr. SanjayGoswamyand Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocatesfor the Respondents. Ms. Iram Majid and Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocates for Respondent GNCTD. PA No. 380/2007 MUNICIPALCOl^PORATlONOF DELHI Appellant Tlirough: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ml*. Alok Singh, Advocates versus GARIMAAGGRAWAL Respondent ThroughMr. SanjayGoswamyand Mr. AjayKumar, Advocates for the Respondents. Ms. IramMajidandMs. ZubedaBegum,Advocates for Respondent GNCTD. LPA No. 381/2007 MUNICIPALCORPOIUTIONOF DELHI ..... Appellant Tlirough: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mi*. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates versus v.. VARDFIMANPROPERTIES Respondent ThroughMr. SanjayGoswamyandMr. Ajay Kumar, Advocates for the Respondents. Ms. Irani Majid and Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocates forRespondentGNCTD. LPA No. 382/2007 MUNICIPALCORPOIUTIONOF DELHI Appellant Thi-ough: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Ml". Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ml-. Alok Singh, Advocates versus VARDI-IMANPROPERTIES Respondent Through Mr. Sanjay Goswamy and Mr. Ajay Kumar, LPANo.319/2007 Page3 of 25 Advocatesfor the Respondents. Ms. IramMajid andMs. ZubedaBegum,Advocates for Respondent GNCTD. LPA No. 383/2007 MUNICIPALCOIIPORATIONOF DELHI .....Appellant Through: Mr.H.S.Phoolka,SeniorAdvocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ml". Alok Singh, Advocates versus VARDHMANPROPERTIES .....Respondent ThroughMr. SanjayGoswamyand Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocates for the Respondents. Ms. IraniMajidand Ms. ZubedaBegum,Advocates for RespondentGNCTD. LPA No. 384/2007 MUNICIPALCOI^OIUTIONOF DELHI Appellant Tlirough: Mr.H.S.Phoolka,SeniorAdvocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Alok Singh,Advocates versus VARDHMANPROPERTIES Respondent ThroughMr. SanjayGoswamyand Mr. AjayKumar, Advocatesfor the Respondents. Ms. IramMajidand Ms. ZubedaBegum,Advocates for Respondent GNCTD. LPA No. 385/2007 MUI^CIPALCOI^ORATIONOF DELHI Appellant Through: Mr.H.S.Phoolka,SeniorAdvocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates versus HARI SINGHBUILDER&PROMOTRS Respondent TliroughMr. SanjayGoswamyand Mi\ AjayKumar, LPANo.319/2007 Page4of25 Advocates for the Respondents. Ms. Iram Majid and Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocates for RespondentGNCTD. LPA Noe 386/2007 MUNICIPALCOI^ORATION OF DELHI Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ml-. Alok Singh, Advocates versus ICAMALKISHORE AGGRAWAL .....Respondent ThroughMr. SanjayGoswamyand Mr. AjayKumar, Advocatesforthe Respondents. Ms. Iram Majid and Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocates for Respondent GNCTD. LPA No. 387/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONOF DELHI Appellant Through: Mr.H.S.Phoolka,SeniorAdvocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates versus VARDHMANPROPERTIES Respondent TliroughMr. SanjayGoswamyandMi*. Ajay Kumar, Advocates for the Respondents. Ms. Iram Majid andMs. Zubeda Begum,Advocates for RespondentGNCTD. LPA No. 388/2007 MUNICIPALCORPOIUTIONOF DELIil Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates versus BASANTPROJECTSLTD .....Respondent ThroughMr. SanjayGoswamyand Mr. AjayKumar, LPA No.319/2007 Page5of25 Advocates for the Respondents. Ms. Iram Majid and Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocates for RespondentGNCTD. LPA No. 389/2007 MUNICIPALCORPORATIONOF DELffl ..... Appellant Through: Mr.H.S.Phoolka,SeniorAdvocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mi'. Alok Singh, Advocates versus VARDHMANPROPERTIES .....Respondent ThroughMr. SanjayGoswamyand Mr. AjayKumar, Advocatesforthe Respondents. Ms. Iram Majid and Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocates for RespondentGNCTD. LPA No. 391/2007 MUNICIPALCORPORATIONOF DELHI Appellant Through: Mr.H.S.Phoolka, Senior Advocate Ml'. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates versus VAtoHMANPROPERTIES Respondent TliroughMr. SanjayGoswamyandMr. Ajay Kumar, Advocatesforthe Respondents. Ms. Iram Majid andMs. Zubeda Begum,Advocates for RespondentGNCTD. LPA No. 394/2007 MUNICIPALCORPORATIONOF DELHI Appellant Through; Mr.H.S.Phoolka,SeniorAdvocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates versus LPANo.319/2007 Page6 of25 VARDHVIAN PROPERTIES. Respondent ThroughMr. SanjayGoswamyand Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocates for the Respondents. Ms. Iram Majid and Ms. Zubeda Begum,Advocates for RespondentGNCTD. LPA No. 395/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Appellant Through: Mr.H.S.Phoolka, SeniorAdvocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and IVh-. Alok Singh, Advocates versus VARDHMAN PROPERTIES Respondent Through Mr. Sanjay Goswamy and Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocates for the Respondents. Ms. Iram Majid and Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocates for RespondentGNCTD. LPA No. 396/2007 MUNICIPALCORPORATIONOF DELHI Appellant Through: Mr.H.S.Phoolka,SeniorAdvocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ml-. Alok Singh, Advocates versus MANISH AGGRAWAL Respondent ThroughMr. SanjayGoswamyand Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocates for the Respondents. Ms. Irani Majid and Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocates for Respondent GNCTD. LPA No. 400/2007 MUNICIPALCORPORATIONOF DELHI Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates versus LPA No.319/2007 Page 7 of 25 np VARDHMAN PROPERTIES Respondent TliroughMr. Sanjay Goswamy and Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocates for the Respondents. Ms. Irani Majid andMs. Zubeda Begum,Advocates for RespondentGNCTD. LPA No. 401/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Appellant Through: Mr.H.S.Phoolka, SeniorAdvocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates versus VARDHMAN PROPERTIES .....Respondent TliroughMr. SanjayGoswamyand Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocates for the Respondents. Ms. Irani Majid and Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocates for RespondentGNCTD. LPA No. 402/2007 MUNICIPALCORPORATIONOF DELHI Appellant Through; Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Alok Singh,Advocates , versus VARDHMANPROPERTIES Respondent TliroughMr. SanjayGoswamyand Mr. AjayKumar, Advocates for the Respondents. Ms. Irani Majid andMs. Zubeda Begum, Advocates for Respondent GNCTD. LPA No. 403/2007 MUNICIPALCORPOIUTIONOF DELHI Appellant Tlirough: Mr.H.S.Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates LPANo.319/2007 Page 8 of 25 S'. cj^ versus VARDHMAN PROPERTIES Respondent ThroughMr. SanjayGoswamyand Mr. AjayKumar, Advocates for the Respondents. Ms. Iram Majid and Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocates for RespondentGNCTD. LPA No. 405/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Alok Smgh, Advocates versus UNITYPROJECTSLIMITED Respondent Thi'bughMr. Sanjay Goswamy and Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocates for the Respondents. Ms. IramMajidand Ms. ZubedaBegum,Advocates for RespondentGNCTD. LPA No. 406/2007 MUNICIPALCORPORATIONOFDELHI Appellant Through: Mr.H.S.Phoolka,SeniorAdvocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and K/Ir. Alok Singh, Advocates versus KEY POINT Respondent ThroughMr. SanjayGoswamyand Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocates for the Respondents. Ms. IramMajid andMs. ZubedaBegum,Advocates for RespondentGNCTD. LPA No. 407/2007 MUNICIPALCORPORATIONOF DELHI Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. SanjeevSabharwaland Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates LPANo.319/2007 Page9 of 25 r\/ versus VARDHMAN PROPERTIES Respondent ThroughMr. SanjayGoswamyand Mr. AjayKumar, Advocates for the Respondents. Ms. Irani Majid and Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocates for RespondentGNCTD. LPANo. 408/2007 MUNICIPALCOI^OIUTION OF DELHI Appellant Through; Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates versus M.M. DEVELOPERS Respondent ThroughMr. SanjayGoswamyand Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocates for the Respondents. Ms. Iram Majid andMs. Zubeda Begum,Advocates for Respondent GNCTD. LPA No. 1051/2007 MUNICIPALCOl^ORATIONOF DELHI Appellant Tlirough: Mr.H.S.Phoolka, SeniorAdvocate Ml-. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates versus VARDHMANPROPERTIES Respondent ThroughMr. SanjayGoswamyand Mr. AjayKumar, Advocatesfor the Respondents. Ms. IraiiiMajidandMs. ZubedaBegum,Advocates for Respondent GNCTD. LPA No. 1057/2007 MUNICIPALCORPORATIONOF DELHI Appellant Tlirough: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ml". Alok Singh, Advocates LPA No.319/2007 Page 10 of25 versus VAl^HMAN PROPERTIES Respondent ThroughMr. SanjayGoswamyandMr. AjayKumar, Advocates for the Respondents. Ms. IramMajid and Ms. ZubedaBegum,Advocates for RespondentGNCTD. LPANo. 1058/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPOIUTION OF DELHI Appellant Through: Mr.H.S.Phoolka,SeniorAdvocate Ml". Sanjeev Sabharwal and JVIr. Alok Smgh, Advocates versus VARDHMAN PROPERTIES .... .Respondent TiiroughMl'. SanjayGoswamyand Mr. AjayKumar, Advocates for the Respondents. Ms. IraniMajid andMs. ZubedaBegum,Advocates for RespondentGNCTD. LPA No. 1059/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates versus SUNDERCONSTRUCTIONCO. Respondent Through Mr. Sanjay Goswamy and Mr. Ajay Kumar, ' Advocates for the Respondents. Ms. Iram Majid and Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocates for Respondent GNCTD. LPA No. 1060/2007 MUNICIPALCOI^ORATION OF DELHI Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and LPA No.319/2007 Page 11 of 25 .4 vK AJ Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates versus VARDHIVIANPIlOPERtlES Respondent ThroughMr. SanjayGoswamyand Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocates for the Respondents. Ms. IramMajidandMs. ZubedaBegum,Advocates for RespondentGNCTD. LPA No. 1061/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Appellant Through: Mr.H.S.Phoolka,SeniorAdvocate Mr. SanjeevSabharwaland Mr. Alok Singh,Advocates versus VARDHMANPROPERTIES Respondent ThroughMr. SanjayGoswamyand Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocatesfor the Respondents. Ms. Iram Majid and Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocates for RespondentGNCTD. AND LPA No. 1285/2007 MUNICIPALCORPOMTION OF DELHI^ Appellant Through: Mr.H.S.Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ml". Alok Singh, Advocates versus SURYABUILDWELL LIMITED Respondent ThroughMr. SanjayGoswamyandMr. Ajay Kumar, Advocates for the Respondents. Ms. Iram Majid andMs. Zubeda Begum,Advocates for RespondentGNCTD. Coram: HON'BLE THE CfflEF JUSTICE LPA No.319/2007 Page 12of 25 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MUIULIDHAR 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be • allowed to see the judgment? 2. to be referred to the Reporter or not? '' 3. Whether the judgment should be reported /^s in Digest? JUDGMENT Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 13* March, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8161 of 2005 and Batch. The writ petitions challenged the validity of the notices issued by the Collector of Stamps under Section 40 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 ('Stamp Act') demanding transfer duty as well as deficient stamp duty and penalty equal to ten times of the deficient duty. 2. The demand for transfer duty was made in respect of the conveyanceof plots of land in favour of the appellantswho successfully bid for them in auctions held by the Delhi DevelopmentAuthority ('DDA')/ Municipal Coi^oration of Delhi ('MCD'). Consequently, perpetual lease deeds were executed and registered in their favour. The writ petitioners had also paid the appropriate stamp duty and transfer duty in terms of the certificateissuedbythe Collectorof Stampsin each of the cases. 3. On 29* August2004 a generalorderwas issuedby the Divisional LPANo.319/2007 Page 13 of 25 Commissioner,Delhi stating that the Collectorsof Stamp of different districtshad adoptedvaryingmethodsof calculationof dutyin respectof perpetual leases which had resulted in the duty being short levied and collected.This conclusionwas reachedon an interpretationof Article35 of Schedule 1 (A) to the Stamp Act as applicableto Delhi and Section 147 to the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 ('DMC Act'). Consequently, the impugned notices were issued in February 2005 to each of the appellants calling upon them to pay the deficient duty as well as the penalty equaling ten times of the deficient duty. In respect of Vardhman Properties, for instance, the auction purchaser had paid Rs.12,42,215 as stamp duty. This was now recomputed as Rs.13,30,604 being the aggregate of Rs.10,79,772 as stamp duty and Rs.2,00,832 as transfer duty. In re-worldng the duty, the total consideration for the perpetual lease was taken as the aggregate of the premium amount of Rs.1,91,11,000and the annual rent calculatedas a percentageof the premium amount. In addition a penalty of Rs.8,88,389(being ten times of the deficient duty) was also demanded. 4. Before the learned Single Judge the respondentscontendedthat they were not challengingthe re-working of the stamp duty since the question of intei-pretationof Article 35 of Schedule 1(A) of the Stamp Act was debatable. Their challenge was, therefore, confined to the penalty imposed under the Stamp Act as well as the DMC Act with regard to the stamp duty and transfer duty respectively as well as the LPANo.319/2007 Page 14 of25 dues in the transfer duty as demanded in the impugned notices. 5. On the question of penalty, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that in terms of Section 40 of the Stamp Act, the power to impose a penalty was consequential upon the Collector of Stamps impounding an instrument. Since no instrument had yet been impounded by the Collector, the question of imposition of any penalty did not arise. To the extent, therefore, that the impugned notices sought to levy penalty, they were held to be unsustainable in law. 6. The next questionbefore the learned Single Judge concernedthe interpretation of the relevant entry in Section 147 (2) (b) (v) DMC Act. After referringto the decisionof the learned SingleJudge of this Court in Niagara Hotels Builders (P) Ltd. v. Union ofIndia 65 (1997)DLf 826, the learned Single Judge concluded that the words 'amount' and 'value' in Section147 (2) (b) (v)DMC Act did not referto the premium collectedfor the grantof the lease.The learnedSingleJudgerejectedthe contentionof the MCD that the word 'amount'refeiTedto premiumand the word 'value' referredto the rent. It was heldthat they refeiTedto the quantum of the rent for the first fifty years of the lease. Consequently, transferduty wouldbe leviableon one-sixthof the rent for the first fifty years of the lease. Althoughthe lease referred to only the first thirty years, the learned Single Judge held that "the transfer duty has to be computedon the basis of 1/6^'^ ofthe rent payableat presentfor the first LPANo.319/2007 , Page 15 of25 30 year period but computed for the first fifty years". 7. The petitions were accordinglypartly allowed holding that no penalty could be imposed in respect of the transfer duty under the DMC Act siiice that was a debatable issue. A direction was issued to re-work thetransferduty in termsofthejudgmentofthe learnedSingleJudge. It was teher held that no further stamp duty in additionto the amounts already paid was payable nor was any penalty chargeable. 8. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the MCD has filed the present appeals. 9. It is contended by Mr. H.S. Phoolka, the learned senior counsel appearing for the MCD that in the sense and in the context in which the word 'rent' is used in Section 147 (2) (b) (v) DMC Act, it had to connote the total consideration payable under the lease deed. His submission was that unless the total consideration as shown on the lease deed was paid by the lessee, the execution of the perpetual lease deed could not have takenplace. Therefore,the v/ord 'rent' wouldincludethe premium paid by the auction purchaser for obtaining the lease. In other words, the expression 'rent' meant 'rent + premium' and not the rent alone. Reference was made to the definition of the word 'premium' in Black's Law Dictionaiy,6* Edition (page 1181). Mr. Phoolkathen submitted that every word occurring in Section 147 (2) (b) (v) DMC Act had to be LPANo.319/2007 Page 16of 25 <«\ given full effect to keeping in view the context in which the word occurs, thereforethe disjunctive'or' had to be read as a conjunctive 'and'. Sincethe leasecouldnothave been executedwithoutthepremium being paid, the legislativeintent was to levy transfer duty on the amount equal to one-sixthof the entire considerationpayable in respect of the lease which, in any event, has been set forth in the instrument. Mi'.Phoolkacontendedthat sincethe annualrent payableis calculatedas a percentage of the premium paid, it is a measure of the premium itself Consequently, there it was logical to include the premium amount as part of the rent for the purposes of computingthe transfer duty. 10. In support of his contention that all words in the statute have to be given full effectMr.Phoolkareferredto the judgmentsof the Supreme Court in Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. v. Aksh Optifibre Ltd. (2005) 7 see 234, Manohar Lai v/ Vinesh Anand (2001) 5 SCC 407, Noorie Manure Mill v. Commissioner Trade Tax (2007) 10 SCC 478, Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. State of MP (2004) 9 SCC 727 and Indcon Structurals (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise (2006) 6 see 786.. 11. Mr.Sanjay Goswamy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that a taxing statute admits of only strict interpretation. If the intention of the legislaturewas to tax the premium paid for the obtaining of a perpetual lease, then certainly the wording of LPA No.319/2007 Page 17 of 25 0 /V) the provisionshouldexpresslyindicateit. Relianceis placedon Section 105 of the Transferof PropertyAct, 1882 ('TP Act') where the words 'premium' and 'rent' have been separatelydefined. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissionerof Income Tax v. Panbari Tea Company AIR 1965 SC 1871, it is submitted that the expression'premium' and 'rent' have to be separatelyunderstoodand one cannot include the other in the context in which it is used in the deed of perpetuallease in the instantcase. The word 'rent' can only refer to the actual rent indicated in the lease deed and not the premium. Reference is also made to the decisions in Govind Ram v. Rajphul SinghAIR 1973, Punjab &Haiyana 94 and S. VenkataramanSwami V. S. Abdul Wahab AIR 1969 Madras 473. 12. In order to appreciate the respective contentions, a reference may be made tirst to Section 147 (2) (b) (v) of the DMC Act which reads: "147. Duty on transfer of property and method of assessment thereto.- (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Corporation shall levy a duty on transfers of immovable property situated within the limits of Delhi in accordance with the provisions hereafter in this section contained. (2) The said duty shall be levied - (a) in the form of a surcharge on the duty imposed by the hidian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) as in force for the time being in the Union Territory of Delhi, on every instrument of the description specifiedbelow, and (b) at such rate as may be determined by the Corporation not exceeding five per cent, on the amount specified below against such instruments - LPANo.319/2007 Page 18 of 25 01^ Description of instrument Amount on which duty should levied (i) Sale of immovable property The amount or value of consideration for the sale, as set forth in instrument. (ii) Exchangeof immovable property The value of the propertyof the greats value, as set forth in the instrument. (iii) Gift of immovableproperty The value of the property,as setforth the instrument. (iv) Mortgage with possession immovable property The amount secured by the mortgage : set forth in the instrument, (v) Lease in perjDetuity immovable property The amountequalto One-sixthof the whole amount or value of the rent which would be paid or deliveredin respectofthe first fifty yearsofthe le: as set forth in the instrument, (emphasis supplied) (v) Contract for transfer of immovable property Ninety per cent of the value of the consideration for the transfer as set out in the contract." 13. In Niagara Hotels &Builders (P) Limiteda learnedSingleJudge of this Court held that the word 'or' in Section 147 (2) (b) (v) DMC Act could not be read in a manner so as to enable MCD to levy the transfer duty on an aggregateboth the premiumamount as well as the rent. In the impugned order in the instant cases, the learned Single Judge has held that the expression"amount' or 'value' both qualified"rent and rent alone" and, therefore, the rent,(and not the premium) could alone form the basis for calculating the transfer duty. 14. Dependingon the context,the word 'premium' can have both a broad as well as a narrow meaning. The definition of premium in the Law Lexicon by P. RamanathaAiyar,SecondEditionreadsas under: LPANo.319/2007 Page 19of 25 "Prenmmmeans a sum of money paid as considerationfor grantof lease.It represents "capitalized:: rent which in fact is the di^rence^between the actual rent and the rejit whicli might otherwisebe obtainedby thelessofc 'Ti-emutn Of' other Like Sums", "are sums paid in excess of the agreed rent ifi considecatioti of grant, continuance or renewalofthetenancy" In Black's Law Dictionary^ Sixth Edition, premium is defined as capitalizedrent"paidmlumpsum at thetuneoflease is granted." 15. The question whether the 'rent' payable under the deeds of perpetual lease in the instant cases includes the 'premium' paid will depend on the context in which the word is used. This distinctionis aclaiowledgedin the defmitionsof the terms 'premium' and 'rent' in Section 105 of the TP Act as well. 16. The decision of the Supreme Court in Panbari Tea Company supports the contentionof the respondentthat, given the context, the word rent in Sectioft 147 (2) (b) (v) DMC Act has to have a narrow meaning. The question that arose in the said case was "whetherthe premium collected ^s a lump sum (althoughpayable in instalments) could also be consideredto be a revenuereceiptin the same manneras the rent collected"? In the said case a registeredlease deed had been executedby the AssesseeCompanyby whichtwo tea estateswere leased out to a firm. The considerationfor the lease was a combinationof LPANo.319/2007 Page 20 of25 premiumin the sum ofRs.2,25,000ofthe annualrentofRs.54,000. The premium was to be paid in the followingmanner; Rs.45,000as lump sum at the time of execution of the lease deed and the balance of Rs.1,18,000in sixteen halfyearly instalmentsof Rs.11,250 before the 31®^ January and 31®' July ofeach year. The annual rent ofRs.54,000 was payablein the followingmanner;Rs.1,000 per month to be paid on orbeforelast date of eachmonth,thus,makingin all Rs.12,000per year and the balanceofRs.42,000to be paid on or before 31'' Decemberof each year. In the assessmentyear for 1952-53,the incometax officer treated the instalmentof Rs. 11,250paid towards premiumas a revenue receipt, this assessment was upheld by the Appellant Assistant Corrimissibneras well as the Tribunal. The High Court reversed the Tribunal and held that the sum of Rs.l 1,250was a capital receipt and not a revenue receipt. The Departmentthen appealedthe Supreme Court. The Supreme Court referred to the decisions in KamakshyiiNarain Singh V. CommissionerofIncometax (1943)IIITR 513, Memberfor the 6oard of Agriculturev. Commissionerof Income Tax (1957) 32 ITR 169 and Chintamani Saran Nath Sah v. Commissioner of Income Tax AlR 1961 SC 732 to underscore the distinction between the premiumand rent. It pointedout that a one-timepaymentof premium for the grantofa leasewas laiownas 'salami'which is inthe natureofa capital receipt ift the hands of the lessor. The Supreme Court then referred to Section 105 TP Act and observed as under: "The section, therefore, brings out the distinction LPAN6.319/2007 iPage21 of25 between a price paid for a transferof a right to enjoy the propertyand the rentto be paidperiodicallyto the lessor. When the interest of the lessor is parted with for a price, the price paid is premium or salami. But the periodical payments made for the continuous enjoyment of the benefits under the lease are in the nature of rent. The former is a capital income and the latter a revenue receipt. There may be circumstanceswhere the parties may camouflage the real nature of the transaction by using clever phraseology. In some cases, the so-called premium is in fact advance rent and in others rent is deferredprice. It is not the form but the substanceof the transaction that matters. The nomenclature used may not be decisive or conclusive but it helps the Court, having regard to the other circumstances, to ascertain the intention of the parties." On an analysis of the relevant clauses in the lease deed, it was held that the amount paid as premium could not be construed as rent and, such premiumwas a capital receipt in the hands of the lessor. 17. In Hotel Kings v. Sara Farhan Lukmani (2007) 1 SCC 202, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of a contextual interpretation and held that while the permitted increase in rent can serve as a yardstick for the landlord to increase the rents it did not make such permitted increase "a part of the rent though it may be a consideration for the grant of lease." 18. The lease