SAXENA, J.:- This is a reference under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, by the Chief Controlling Revenue

Authority, viz., the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh.

2. Admittedly in an auction Banney Khan applicant took the contract for collection of toll from the premises known as 'New Sabzimandi' belonging to the Municipal Board, Ujhani, District Budaun, for the period 1st of April, 1967, to March 1968. In pursuance of this auction a document (Annexure I to the Reference) describing the Municipal Board, Ujhani, as "the lessor" and the applicant as "the lessee" was executed by both the parties on 31-3-1967. Stamp duty of Rs. 2.50 was paid on this document. The essential terms of the agreement were that during the said period of one year the lessee will remain in possession of the subject-matter of lease and will realise toll on all the goods at the rates provided by the lessor. The lessee will pay to the lessor for such permission a sum of Rs. 23,700/- out of which Rs. 10,000/- will be paid by 1-4-1967 and the balance will be paid in four instalments of Rs. 3,425/- per month by the end of each succeeding month and, as such, the whole amount will be paid by the end of August, 1967. In case of default in the payment of any instalment the lessor will be entitled to determine the lease and enter into possession of the premises and the lessee will forfeit all his rights therein, and will be liable for any sum remaining unpaid and for any loss that may accrue to the lessor by reason of his default.

3. The Inspector of Stamps and Registration, Bareilly Circle, who has been appointed as Collector under Section 40 of the Stamp Act, examined this document in the office of the Municipal Board, Ujhani and being of the view that it is a lease as defined in Section 2 (16) of the Indian Stamp Act, was chargeable with duty under Article 35 (b), Schedule I-B of the U. P. Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1962, impounded it and imposed deficit duty of Rs. 1,077.75 and a penalty of Rs. 100/-. The applicant being aggrieved filed an application under Section 56 (1) before the Board of Revenue and then prayed that the matter be referred under Section 57 of the Stamp Act to the High Court. Accordingly, the Board of Revenue has submitted a statement of the case with its opinion and has formulated two points of law for decision, viz:-

1. Whether the document is a lease deed falling under Section 2 (16) of the Stamp Act and is chargeable under Article 35 (b), Schedule I-B of the U. P. Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1962, with a duty of Rs. 1,080/-.

2. Whether the document is a licence and also a bond under Section 2 (5) of the Stamp Act and is chargeable with duty as a bond under Article 15, Schedule I-B of the above Act.

4. So far as the first point is concerned, the learned counsel for the applicant has made three submissions. In the first place he has contended that the preamble of the Stamp Act shows that it is an Act to consolidate and amend which means that it collects statutory provisions relating to stamp and embodies them in this Act making only minor improvements and amendments and does not alter any existing law and, as such, the word "lease" will be construed to mean as defined in Section 105, Transfer of Property Act and not as contained in the Stamp Act. The contention carries no force because in the case of Santhanand v. Basudevanand, (AIR 1930 All 225) (FB) the Full Bench of this Court has held that a consolidating and amending Act does not merely consolidate previous enactments but the whole law on the subject and it goes not merely consolidate pre-existing law but also amends it which taken with consolidation of the same implies both addition to and in derogation from the pre-existing law. It is a complete Code in itself as regards the subject it deals with. Again in Ravulu Subba Rao v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, (AIR 1956 SC 604) their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the courts must construe the provisions of the consolida