Judgment : By consent of the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing. 2. Thewrit petition has been filed praying for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in P.M.No.46652/P1/2003 dated 12.2.2004 and quash the same. 3. The writ petitioner, Central Bank of India, Chennai Main Branch, represented by its Chief Manager (for short, ‘writ petitioner-Bank’), is a body corporate constituted under the Banking companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and it is a Nationalised Bank. The writ petitioner-Bank took the premises bearing Door No. 30 (Old No.11) Second Line Beach, Chennai-1, on lease, where they were already functioning. They had obtained a lease on a monthly rent basis from Madras Stock Exchange Limited, who are the owners of the building. The Lease Deed dated 17.8.2000 was executed by the Madras Stock Exchange Limited in favour of the writ petitioner-Bank for a period of five years commencing from 1.1.2000 and ending on 31.12.2004 in respect of the premises in which the writ petitioner-Bank is now functioning. The said premises comes within the Sub-Registration District of Chennai - North. Calculating the monthly rent for a period of five years, Stamp Duty Rs. 20,650/- together with the corresponding registration fee was paid by the writ petitioner-Bank and the document was given a number pending registration as P62 of 2000. The Sub-Registrar impounded the Lease Deed and demanded the payment of alleged deficit Stamp Duty amounting to Rs. 1,44,470/- together with a penalty of Rs. 130/- holding that the lease entered into between the writ petitioner-Bank and their owner falls within the ambit of Article 35(a)(iii) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. 4. The writ petitioner-Bank received a notice dated 19.9.2001 from the second respondent and by letter dated 20.10.2001, the writ petitioner-Bank explained the position to the second respondent that the lease was only for a period of five years and requested him to dispose of the matter expeditiously. It was further indicated in their explanation that the renewal clause mentioned in the lease deed is only optional, to be exercised by the lessee and that too, only at the end of the lease period. The second respondent by proceedings dated 28.7.2003 rejected the explanation given by the writ petitioner-Bank and directed the writ petitioner-Bank to pay the deficit Stamp Duty. The second respondent by proceedings dated 28.7.2003 rejected the explanation given by the writ petitioner-Bank and directed the writ petitioner-Bank to pay the deficit Stamp Duty. Aggrieved at the same, the writ petitioner-Bank preferred an appeal before the first respondent. The first respondent dismissed the appeal by order dated 12.2.2004, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition. 5. The writ petition was admitted on 25.6.2004 and an order of interim stay was granted by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.20709 of 2004. 6. In paragraph3(e) of the Lease Deed, it is stated as follows: "“That if the Lessee shall be desirous of continuing the term hereby granted for a further period of five years from the 1.1.2005 at the expiration of the period hereby granted and shall at least thirty days before the day of 1.1.2005 or earlier, given to the Lessor a notice in writing of such of its desire and shall pay the rent hereby reserved and perform the several stipulations herein contained and on its part to be observed upto the termination of the term hereby granted, then the Lessor shall demise the demised premises to the Lessee for a further term of five years from 1.1.2005 upon the conditions that an increase of 15% will be paid from the date of renewal of the lease, i.e., from 1.1.2005 and other terms and conditions contained herein, including this covenant for renewal.”" On the basis of the term found in paragraph 3(e) of the Lease Deed, the writ petitioner-Bank came to the conclusion that since the option was given to the Lessee to extend the lease with an option to pay 15% more on the existing rent, it should be construed as lease for a period of ten years and in terms of Section 35(c) of the Indian Stamp Act (for short, ‘Stamp Act’), the respondents demanded Stamp Duty in terms of Article 35(a)(iii) of Schedule I of the Stamp Act. The second respondent has also filed a counter affidavit to that effect justifying their stand. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-Bank as well as Mr. V.R. Thangavelu, learned Government Advocate representing for the respondents and perused the records. 8. The second respondent has also filed a counter affidavit to that effect justifying their stand. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-Bank as well as Mr. V.R. Thangavelu, learned Government Advocate representing for the respondents and perused the records. 8. The learnedcounsel appearing for the writ petitioner-Bank, apart from reiterating the contentions raised in the affidavit, also relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in M. Mohan v. Smt. Maheswari Seth AIR 1987 Del.115 in support of his contentions and particularly, drew the attention of this Court to paragraph 16 of the said judgment, which is as follows: "“16. The lease deed is only for a period of eleven months. The term of renewal is not a distinct matter within the meaning of Section 5 of the Stamp Act. There is only one contract of lease for eleven months. In Secretary to Commissioner of Salt, Abkari and Separate-Revenue, Board of Revenue v. Sutherland Secretary to Commissioner of Salt, Abkari and Separate-Revenue, Board of Revenue v. Sutherland Secretary to Commissioner of Salt, Abkari and Separate-Revenue, Board of Revenue v. Sutherland (1902) ILR 25 Mad.3, it has been held that a lease for three years containing a covenant on the part of the lessor to renew it, at the option of the lessee, for a further period of one year or two years from the expiration of the original term is not an instrument comprising or relating to several distinct matters within the meaning of Section 5 of the Stamp Act, 1899. Such an instrument contains but on contract, namely a demise. The option to renew is ancillary to and forms part of the consideration for entering into the lease.“ 9. However, in support of the contention, the learned counsel for writ petitioner-Bank referred to Section 5 of the Stamp Act, which is as follows: Section 5. Instruments relating to several distinct matters. Any instrument comprising or relating to several distinct matters shall be chargeable with the aggregate amount of the duties with which separate instruments, each comprising or relating to one of such matter, would be chargeable under this Act.” 10. A bare reading of paragraph 3(e) of the Lease Deed clearly shows that the lease is only for a period of five years as agreed to, by the landlords/owner of the premises. A bare reading of paragraph 3(e) of the Lease Deed clearly shows that the lease is only for a period of five years as agreed to, by the landlords/owner of the premises. The second portion of the said paragraph extracted above will clearly show that it was only an option on the part of the lessee (in the present case, the writ petitioner-Bank) to seek for extension as a matter of right, provided they agree to pay 15% enhanced rent from the date of renewal. This cannot form part of subject matter of the lease terms and the writ petitioner-Bank correctly paid the Stamp Duty by holding that the lease is only for a period of five years. When a document is presented, it is incumbent upon the respondents to apply their mind to come to correct conclusion and they should not refer to revenue collection and make claims which are not based upon law. They are also expected to act strictly within the legal framework and should not harass the persons coming for registration. 11. In the present case, the writ petitioner is a Nationalised Bank and it is not as if they are trying to get a document registered by paying deficit Stamp Duty. The decision of the Delhi High Court, which is referred to above, has clearly laid down the correct position of law in terms of Article 35 prescribed in Schedule I read with Section 5 of the Stamp Act. Therefore, there is no justification for the respondents to demand the alleged deficit Stamp Duty together with penalty. 12. In the light of the above, the writ petition stands allowed. The respondents are hereby directed to register the document presented by the writ petitioner-Bank on production of the certified copy of this order and return the same to them forthwith. However, there will be no order as to costs. In view of the same, the Miscellaneous Petition in W.P.M.P.No.20709 of 2004 has become unnecessary and the same shall stand dismissed.