LPA No.319/2007 Page 1 of 25 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI LPA No. 319 of 2007 Reserved on: 19th May, 2008 Date of judgment: July 02, 2008 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ….. Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates versus N.K. GUPTA …..Respondent Through Mr. Sanjay Goswamy and Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocates for the Respondents. Ms. Iram Majid and Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocates for Respondent GNCTD. With LPA No. 373/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ….. Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. 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 Respondent GNCTD. LPA No. 374/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ….. Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates versus LPA No.319/2007 Page 2 of 25 KEY POINT …..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. 376/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ….. Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates versus K.K. ENTERPRISES …..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. 377/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ….. Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. 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 Respondent GNCTD. LPA No. 378/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ….. Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates versus LPA No.319/2007 Page 3 of 25 K.K. ENTERPRISES …..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. 380/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ….. Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates versus GARIMA AGGRAWAL …..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. 381/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ….. Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. 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 Respondent GNCTD. LPA No. 382/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ….. Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates versus VARDHMAN PROPERTIES …..Respondent Through Mr. Sanjay Goswamy and Mr. Ajay Kumar, LPA No.319/2007 Page 4 of 25 Advocates for the Respondents. Ms. Iram Majid and Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocates for Respondent GNCTD. LPA No. 383/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ….. Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. 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 Respondent GNCTD. LPA No. 384/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ….. Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. 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 Respondent GNCTD. LPA No. 385/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ….. Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates versus HARI SINGH BUILDER & PROMOTRS …..Respondent Through Mr. Sanjay Goswamy and Mr. Ajay Kumar, LPA No.319/2007 Page 5 of 25 Advocates for the Respondents. Ms. Iram Majid and Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocates for Respondent GNCTD. LPA No. 386/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ….. Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates versus KAMAL KISHORE AGGRAWAL …..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. 387/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ….. Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. 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 Respondent GNCTD. LPA No. 388/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ….. Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates versus BASANT PROJECTS LTD …..Respondent Through Mr. Sanjay Goswamy and Mr. Ajay Kumar, LPA No.319/2007 Page 6 of 25 Advocates for the Respondents. Ms. Iram Majid and Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocates for Respondent GNCTD. LPA No. 389/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ….. Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. 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 Respondent GNCTD. LPA No. 391/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ….. Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. 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 Respondent GNCTD. LPA No. 394/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF 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 VARDHMAN PROPERTIES …..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. 395/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ….. Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. 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 Respondent GNCTD. LPA No. 396/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ….. Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates versus MANISH AGGRAWAL …..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. 400/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ….. Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates versus LPA No.319/2007 Page 8 of 25 VARDHMAN PROPERTIES …..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. 401/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ….. Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. 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 Respondent GNCTD. LPA No. 402/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ….. Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. 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 Respondent GNCTD. LPA No. 403/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ….. Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates LPA No.319/2007 Page 9 of 25 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 Respondent GNCTD. LPA No. 405/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ….. Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates versus UNITY PROJECTS LIMITED …..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. 406/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ….. Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates versus KEY POINT …..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. 407/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ….. Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates LPA No.319/2007 Page 10 of 25 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 Respondent GNCTD. LPA No. 408/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ….. Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates versus M.M. DEVELOPERS …..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. 1051/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ….. Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. 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 Respondent GNCTD. LPA No. 1057/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ….. Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates LPA No.319/2007 Page 11 of 25 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 Respondent GNCTD. LPA No. 1058/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ….. Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. 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 Respondent GNCTD. 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 SUNDER CONSTRUCTION CO. …..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 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ….. Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and LPA No.319/2007 Page 12 of 25 Mr. 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 Respondent GNCTD. LPA No. 1061/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ….. Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. 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 Respondent GNCTD. AND LPA No. 1285/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ….. Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates versus SURYA BUILDWELL LIMITED …..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 LPA No.319/2007 Page 13 of 25 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in Digest? JUDGMENT Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 13th 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 conveyance of plots of land in favour of the appellants who successfully bid for them in auctions held by the Delhi Development Authority („DDA‟)/ Municipal Corporation 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 certificate issued by the Collector of Stamps in each of the cases. 3. On 29th August 2004 a general order was issued by the Divisional LPA No.319/2007 Page 14 of 25 Commissioner, Delhi stating that the Collectors of Stamp of different districts had adopted varying methods of calculation of duty in respect of perpetual leases which had resulted in the duty being short levied and collected. This conclusion was reached on an interpretation of Article 35 of Schedule 1 (A) to the Stamp Act as applicable to 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-working the duty, the total consideration for the perpetual lease was taken as the aggregate of the premium amount of Rs.1,91,11,000 and the annual rent calculated as a percentage of 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 respondents contended that they were not challenging the re-working of the stamp duty since the question of interpretation of 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 LPA No.319/2007 Page 15 of 25 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 question before the learned Single Judge concerned the interpretation of the relevant entry in Section 147 (2) (b) (v) DMC Act. After referring to the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Niagara Hotels & Builders (P) Ltd. v. Union of India 65 (1997) DLT 826, the learned Single Judge concluded that the words „amount‟ and „value‟ in Section 147 (2) (b) (v) DMC Act did not refer to the premium collected for the grant of the lease. The learned Single Judge rejected the contention of the MCD that the word „amount‟ referred to premium and the word „value‟ referred to the rent. It was held that they referred to the quantum of the rent for the first fifty years of the lease. Consequently, transfer duty would be leviable on one-sixth of the rent for the first fifty years of the lease. Although the lease referred to only the first thirty years, the learned Single Judge held that “the transfer duty has to be computed on the basis of 1/6th of the rent payable at present for the first LPA No.319/2007 Page 16 of 25 30 year period but computed for the first fifty years”. 7. The petitions were accordingly partly allowed holding that no penalty could be imposed in respect of the transfer duty under the DMC Act since that was a debatable issue. A direction was issued to re-work the transfer duty in terms of the judgment of the learned Single Judge. It was further held that no further stamp duty in addition to 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 taken place. Therefore, the word „rent‟ would include the 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 Dictionary, 6th Edition (page 1181). Mr. Phoolka then submitted that every word occurring in Section 147 (2) (b) (v) DMC Act had to be LPA No.319/2007 Page 17 of 25 given full effect to keeping in view the context in which the word occurs. Therefore the disjunctive „or‟ had to be read as a conjunctive „and‟. Since the lease could not have been executed without the premium being paid, the legislative intent was to levy transfer duty on the amount equal to one-sixth of the entire consideration payable in respect of the lease which, in any event, has been set forth in the instrument. Mr.Phoolka contended that since the annual rent payable is calculated as 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 computing the transfer duty. 10. In support of his contention that all words in the statute have to be given full effect Mr.Phoolka referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. v. Aksh Optifibre Ltd. (2005) 7 SCC 234, Manohar Lal 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 SCC 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 legislature was to tax the premium paid for the obtaining of a perpetual lease, then certainly the wording of LPA No.319/2007 Page 18 of 25 the provision should expressly indicate it. Reliance is placed on Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 („TP Act‟) where the words „premium‟ and „rent‟ have been separately defined. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Panbari Tea Company AIR 1965 SC 1871, it is submitted that the expression „premium‟ and „rent‟ have to be separately understood and one cannot include the other in the context in which it is used in the deed of perpetual lease in the instant case. 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 Singh AIR 1973, Punjab & Haryana 94 and S. Venkataraman Swami v. S. Abdul Wahab AIR 1969 Madras 473. 12. In order to appreciate the respective contentions, a reference may be made first 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 Indian 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 specified below, 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 – LPA No.319/2007 Page 19 of 25 Description of instrument Amount on which duty should levied (i) Sale of immovable property The amount or value of t consideration for the sale, as set forth in t instrument. (ii) Exchange of immovable property The value of the property of the greate value, as set forth in the instrument. (iii) Gift of immovable propertyThe value of the property, as set forth the instrument. (iv) Mortgage with possession immovable property The amount secured by the mortgage a set forth in the instrument. (v) Lease in perpetuity immovable property The amount equal to one-sixth of the whole amount or value of the rent which would be paid or delivered in respect of the first fifty years of the lea 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) Limited a learned Single Judge 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 aggregate both the premium amount 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. Depending on 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. Ramanatha Aiyar, Second Edition reads as under: LPA No.319/2007 Page 20 of 25 “Premium means a sum of money paid as consideration for grant of lease. It represents capitalized rent which in fact is the difference between the actual rent and the rent which might otherwise be obtained by the lessor. “Premium Or other Like Sums”, “are sums paid in excess of the agreed rent in consideration of grant, continuance or renewal of the tenancy” In Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, premium is defined as capitalized rent “paid in lump sum at the time of lease 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 distinction is acknowledged in the definitions of 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 contention of the respondent that, given the context, the word „rent‟ in Section 147 (2) (b) (v) DMC Act has to have a narrow meaning. The question that arose in the said case was “whether the premium collected as a lump sum (although payable in instalments) could also be considered to be a revenue receipt in the same manner as the rent collected”? In the said case a registered lease deed had been executed by the Assessee Company by which two tea estates were leased out to a firm. The consideration for the lease was a combination of LPA No.319/2007 Page 21 of 25 premium in the sum of Rs.2,25,000 of the annual rent of Rs.54,000. The premium was to be paid in the following manner: Rs.45,000 as lump sum at the time of execution of the lease deed and the balance of Rs.1,18,000 in sixteen half yearly instalments of