1. Whether the deed executed in favour of the respondent was a lease for 9 [nine] years or of an indefenite period, was the question raised before the District Court in the context of the adjudication with respect to the stamp duty livable under the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 [for brevity “Stamp Act”].

2. The short facts to be noticed are that the respondent entered into a lease with the owner of a building, bearing door No.40/8814 of Kochi Corporation taking on rent approximately 900 square feet carpet area in the ground floor of the building at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees one lakh] per month for a period of 9 years with a periodic increase of 15% in every 3 years. A dispute arose insofar as a condition in the deed which enabled the lessee to continue in occupation even after the expiry of the period; if the security deposit of Rs.10,00,000/- [Rupees ten lakhs] was not refunded. The condition also enabled interest at the rate of 18% on the security amount from the date of expiry of the lease agreement, which did not carry any interest during the period of agreed lease of 9 years.

3. Stamp duty was paid as per Article 33(a)(iii) of the Schedule to the Stamp Act, of Rs.1,87,700/- determining the same on the basis of a lease of 9 years. The Sub Registrar refused to register the document treating it to be undervalued and referred it to the District Registrar (General)/Collector [for brevity “Collector” or “District Registrar”] for reason of his opinion that the stamp duty livable was under Article 33(a)(viii) of the Schedule to the Stamp Act. The stamp duty livable, according to the Sub Registrar, was Rs.5,80,313/-. The District Registrar concurred with the same. The said order was challenged before the District Court under Section 45B of the Stamp Act, which reversed the order of the District Registrar; impugned herein.

4. The first challenge made against the order is that an appeal is not maintainable for reason of the proceedings having not been taken under Section 45B of the Stamp Act. The said defence was raised before the District Judge also, who negatived the same. The contention raised was on the premise that Section 45B mandated registration of a document even if it is undervalued before reference to the Collector. Hence, the proper course which should have been taken by the Sub Registrar on presentation of the document and on an opinion of undervaluation; was to register the document and then refer it to the Collector. An adjudication is also provided under Chapter III of the Stamp Act, wherein no appeal is provided there from. However, in view of Section 45B, the Sub Registrar before whom the document was presented could not have sought for an adjudication. The proper procedure would have been to register the document and then refer it to the Collector. An order of adjudication made by the Collector under Chapter III could have also been challenged before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. Here, no fault can be found on the person who presented the document for registration, since it was incumbent upon the Sub Registrar to register the document and then refer it to the Collector. Having not done so, there can be no defence raised by the Government that an appeal would not lie due to the default of the servant of the Government. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the said finding of the District Judge.

6. What remains is the consideration as to the actual stamp duty livable. The lease was obviously for a period of 9 years with a specific condition permitting continuance of the lessee; on the failure of the lessor to refund the security amount. The lease then could have been extended for an indefinite period. If the security amount was declined to be paid after the expiry of the lease period, then the lessee could have continued in the premises on the same condit