JUDGMENT Ghulam Hasan, C.J. and Kidwai, J. - The Chief Inspector of Stamps has reported that Ex. 1 produced in the case is liable to a stamp duty of Rs. 270 since it is either a qabuliat falling within Section 2(16)(b) of the Indian Stamp Act or an agreement under Article 35(a)(ii) of the said Act We do not consider that this interpretation of Ex. 1 is correct. It appears that the firm of Sukhram Das and Devi Dutt held a lease dated the 24th March, 1931, from Mr. H.C. Captain, who was a receiver and had under his control the property known as Lucknow Flour Mills and Ice Factory. That lease is Ex. l5 on the record and it was for a period of one year only, but the lessee continued to hold over and on the 27th July, 1942, he wrote to Mr. Captain informing him that he agreed to continue the lease of the property for a further period of three years on the conditions which he mentioned in the letter. Clause 8, however, provided that a formal lease for three years would be executed on the terms and conditions mentioned in the old lease and that until a new lease was executed the firm would continue to hold the premises on a monthly tenancy on the same terms and conditions and on the sane rent This document clearly contemplated that a lease for three years would be required and would be executed if the lessor agreed to grant the lease. It further provided that until such a lease was executed the position would continue to be v. bat it was in view of the fact that the lessee was holding over under an expired lease. In our opinion this cannot be said to be a qabuliat as defined in Section 2(16)(b) of the Indian Stamp Act, because it is only after the lessor has agreed to let the property that a qabuliat is executed, and in the present case there is nothing to show that the lessor bad agreed to let the property as suggested in the document (Ex. 1). Further we do not think that it is an agreement within the meaning Article 35(a)(ii) of the Act because there is nothing to indicate that the proponed lessor accepted the offer made by Ex 1. 1). Further we do not think that it is an agreement within the meaning Article 35(a)(ii) of the Act because there is nothing to indicate that the proponed lessor accepted the offer made by Ex 1. We think that, on a proper cots ruction of the document it is nothing more than a letter offering to take a lease on certain terms. There is nothing to indicate that the offer was accepted therefore, there was neither an agreement nor a qabuliat and no stamp duty was required. 2. We accordingly hold that the Plaintiff is not liable either to pay any deficit duty or to pay any penalty we reject the report of the Chief Inspector of Stamps.