Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—Challenging the legality and validity of the two orders dated 27.2.1992 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Firozabad and dated 12.1.1993 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad in a proceeding under Section 33/40 of the Indian Stamp Act, initiated against the petitioners demanding a sum of Rs. 59,656.50 towards deficiency in stamp duty and Rs. 500/- towards the penalty, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The facts of the case may be noted in brief :

During audit inspection for the period of March, 1989 to December, 1989 it was found by them that a lease deed being document No. 4505 dated 10.5.1989 was executed for a period of 10 years on annual rent of Rs. 400/- on which stamp duty of Rs. 90/- was paid. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioners with regard to the lease deed of 15000 Sq. Ft. area of plot No. 187 executed by Smt. Premwati wife of Nand Kumar Agrawal. The said lease deed was executed in favour of the present petitioners who were partners in M/s. Seema Plastic Industries Mainpuri Road, Shikohabad. The lessor is wife of the petitioner No. 1 and mother of the petitioner No. 2. The said lease deed was treated as a document of sale in view of Section 164 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act by the Stamp Department. Since the plot so leased out is surrounded by commercial establishments, the District Magistrate opined that the stamp duty as applicable to commercial land is chargeable. The Additional District Magistrate (F & R) by the order dated 27.2.1992 held that the report submitted by the Sub Registrar, Shikohabad in the light of the objections raised by the audit party that stamp duty is payable treating the said document as sale-deed in view of Section 164 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is perfectly justified. The said order has been confirmed in Revision No. 783 of 1991-1992 by the authority below.

3. Shri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the document in question is a lease-deed and the authorities below were not justified in view of Section 164 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in treating the said document as a sale-deed. The submission is that the lease as defined under the Stamp Act should be taken into account for the purposes of determining the stamp duty on the instrument in question. He further submits that in view of various provisions contained in the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, lease of an agricultural land unless made by a disabled person is void and there is no transfer of right, interest or title in pursuance of the said document and therefore, no stamp duty is payable. The learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, supports the impugned order.

4. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. It may be noted that lease of immovable property has been defined in Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act which means transfer of right to enjoy such property, made for certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or promised, or of money, a share of crops, service or any other thing of value, to be rendered periodically or on specified occasions, to the transferor by the transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms.

6. “Lease” as defined under Section 2(16) of the Indian Stamp Act, is as follows :

“Lease” means a lease of immovable property and includes also—

(a) a patta;

(b) a kabuliyat or other undertaking in writing, not being a counterpart of a lease, to cultivate, occupy, or pay or deliver rent for immovable property;

(c) any instrument by which tolls of any description are let;

(d) any writing on an application for lease intended to signify that the application is granted;

(e) any instrument by which mining lease is granted in respect of minor minerals as defined in clause (e) of Section 3 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957.”

7. A conjoint reading of the definit