JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

Heard.

1. Instant appeal is against the judgement and decree dated 18/05/2018 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Durg in Civil Suit No.33-A/2016.

2. A civil suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff that the amount deposited for renewal of lease under protest of Rs.1772375/- be returned alongwith interest. The plaint allegation would show that the appellant/plaintiff was allotted a land of 1000 sq.ft. of plot No.153 under shop cum residence scheme of Bhilai Steel Plant for 30 years on 30/09/1982. The lease came to an end on 29/09/2012. According to the plaintiff, the lease deed embodied a renewal clause that at the time of expiry, if the renewal option is exercised, that would be further renewed for a period of 30 years subject to enhancement of existing rent which would not be more than 50%. The plaintiff contended that to renew the lease an amount of renewal fees of Rs.1562500/- was demanded alongwith Rs.1,25,000/- as a security deposit. The plaintiff stated that the premium was already paid in the year 1982 as such the respondent cannot demand further amount of fees by way of a renewal and since the plaintiff was facing an ejectment, the amount demanded was paid under protest.

3. Per contra, the respondent/defendant contended that as per clause of the renewal of the lease, the fresh lease would be a renewed lease and not an extended lease and after determination of the lease which has no nexus with the earlier lease and as per the policy of the SAIL, certain amount were fixed which was only 25% to the extent of existing value and according to that policy, fresh amount of premium was asked for. Therefore, the demand so made from the plaintiff is justified. Consequently, the lease was renewed.

4. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the learned trial court framed four issues. Issue No.1, 2 and 3 which are inter related with each other, the finding of the court was that the plaintiff is not entitled for return of amount of Rs.17,71,875/- which was charged as amount of renewal fees and the security deposit of lease. Being aggrieved by such order, the present appeal.

5. Shri Rajeev Shrivastav, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Sourabh Sahu, Advocate for the appellant/plaintiff, would submit that primary facts are undisputed in this case. He would submit however the definition of 'lease' as defined under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act nowhere contemplate that a renewal fees of the like nature can be charged. He would submit that the plaintiff having exercised his option for renewal of the lease prior to six months of the expiry of the earlier existing lease, the lease should have been renewed. He submits that after the period expired, the plaintiff continued in possession and thereafter the demand was made by Ex.P-3 letter dated 31/12/2013. He would further submit that the denomination of word 'fees' would have a direct relation to any service rendered and fees cannot be at par with the tax and therefore the demand contra to section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be charged specially when the respondent is a state under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. He further placed his reliance in (1980) 1 SCC 416 in between Kewal Krishan Puri & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. to submit that the fees is charged for a special service rendered, the renewal fees of lease is not for any service rendered and therefore cannot be justifiable and the payment therefore was made under protest to arrest ejectment. Therefore such illegal recovery is liable to be returned and the suit be decreed.

6. Per contra, Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant would submit that after expiry of the earlier lease on 29/09/2012, as there were several lease expired in like nature meeting of the officials of the SAIL was conducted. Thereafter a policy decision was taken which is Ex.D-4. According to guide line as per valuation of land premium of the land was fixed which a