Judgment :- Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J. The petitioner has raised the challenge to the order, dated 30.07.2009 (Annexure-M) passed by the Court of the City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH-28) in O.S.No.8733/2005 directing the petitioner to pay the duty and penalty of Rs.2,51,075/- 2. The subject-matter of this petition is the liability to pay the duty and penalty on the agreement of lease, dated 29.4.2001. The said agreement is executed by the first respondent-plaintiff in favour of the second respondent (the first defendant). A perusal of the said agreement would reveal that the monthly rent agreed upon is Rs.5,500/-, and the lease is for a period of eleven months with a provision for the renewal on fresh terms. The advance amount agreed upon is Rs.2,00,000/-, which amount is liable to be repaid to the tenant/lessee at the time of vacating the schedule premises. The Trial Court’s office has calculated the amounts as follows: i) On the rental amounts Rs.3,025-00 ii) On the advance amount Rs.20,000-00 Total -Rs. 23,025-00 Less : amount paid Rs. 200-00 Balance Rs. 22,825-00 3. The deficit amount is thus calculated to be Rs.22,825/-and penalty of Rs.2,28,250/-(ten times of the stamp value), totaling Rs.2,51,075/-. It is this order, requiring the petitioner to pay the Bald amount that is challenged in this petition. 4. Sri. B. Vijay Shetty, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that what is attracted to the instant case is only Article 30(1)(a)(i) which prescribe the payment of the same duty as a bond (Article No.12) for the total amount of rent payable under such lease, where the lease purports to be for a term of less than one year. He submits that the Article 30(2)(c) has no application where no fine or premium or money in addition to the rent reserved is given. The sum of Rs.2,00,000/-is given only by way of security deposit, which is not adjustable towards the rent or rent-arrears. He has also relied on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of The Chief Controlling Authority Vs. M/s. Texas Instruments India Limited, reported in ILR 2003 Kar 4386. Its Headnotes (B) and (C) are extracted herein bellow: “(B) KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957 (KARNATAKA ACT NO.34 OF 1957) Article 47Whether the duty paid on the amount reserved wider Clause 3.2 of lease deed as refundable security deposit appropriate—Held, it is appropriate. M/s. Texas Instruments India Limited, reported in ILR 2003 Kar 4386. Its Headnotes (B) and (C) are extracted herein bellow: “(B) KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957 (KARNATAKA ACT NO.34 OF 1957) Article 47Whether the duty paid on the amount reserved wider Clause 3.2 of lease deed as refundable security deposit appropriate—Held, it is appropriate. .(C) KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957 (KARNATAKA ACT NO.34 OF 1957-ARTICLE 30 .(C) – Whether the amount reserved as, refundable security deposit under Clause 3.2 of lease deed is it money advanced and does not attract duty. Held, it is not money advanced and does it attract duty under Article 30(C) of schedule to the Act. 5. Sri Vijay Shetty has also relied on the decision of this Court in the case of K. Ramachandra Rao and others Vs. K. Ramamohana Gupta and Others reported in ILR 2006 Kar 2561. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted herein below “9. There is a fine distinction between the word premium and the security deposit/advance. A premium includes any like sum, whether payable to the intermediate or a Superior landlord, and any sum paid on or in connection with granting of a tenancy is presumed to have been paid by the way of premium except insofar as other sufficient consideration for the payment is shown to have been given. Apparently “premium” would mean the amount which is paid before the period of lease commenced and the liability for rent was incurred by the lessee. Such a sum paid in advance could only be a consideration for the grant of the lease and it clearly does not amount to premium which would necessarily mean that it is a money advanced in addition to the rent reserved. But however in the agreement if there is a stipulation for return of the advance or security deposit then it shall not partake character of a premium. A premium is in the nature of capital and such a sum could only be a consideration for grant of lease and only in such cases it would mean that it is premium as defined under Section 105 of the T.P. Act. It is not the form but substance of the transaction that matters. The nomenclature used may not be decisive or conclusive but would held having regard to the other circumstances to ascertain in the intention of the parties. It is not the form but substance of the transaction that matters. The nomenclature used may not be decisive or conclusive but would held having regard to the other circumstances to ascertain in the intention of the parties. A perusal of the agreement clearly discloses that it is not in the nature a premium, but it is in the nature of a security deposit. 11. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of the Chief Controlling Authority Vs. M/s. Taxas Instruments India Limited, has ruled that the amount received under the particular clause of the lease deed would be the money advanced in addition to the rent reserved does not attract duty under Article 30(a) of Schedule to the Act. Since word “Premium” does not encompass the refundable security deposit, I am of the view that the impugned orders passed in these Writ Petitions are liable to be set aside” 6. Sri Vijay Shetty has also relied on the Delhi High Court special bench’s decision in the case of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Delhi Vs. Marshall Produce Brokers Co. Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, reported in AIR 1980 Delhi 249. In the said case, where the fine falling under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 was being considered, it was held that if the deposit/advance is adjustable towards rent, the document attracts duty. If the ‘fine’ (“Salami” “Nazarana” and “Pugree” etc known by different names in different States) is paid, then the stamp duty is chargeable. The test laid down there is whether the advance amount goes irrevocably into the pocket of the landlord. 7. The learned Counsel has also relied on the Full Bench decision on the madras High Court in the case of Board of Revenue, Madras, Referring Authority Vs. M/s. Simpson and Mc Conechy Ltd., Madras, reported in AIR 1961 Madras 210 in the said case, it was held that where under a lease deed, executed in consideration of the advance made by the lessee to discharge subsisting encumbrances, the lessee was empowered to withhold from the stipulated monthly rent a certain sum of money and appropriate the same in liquidation of the sum advanced by him, the document is chargeable with stamp duty. 8. Sri Vijay Shetty, submits that, a Similar View is taken in case of V. Srinivasan Vs. Sub-Registrar, Hiriyur and Another reported in ILR 1984 Kar 989. 9. 8. Sri Vijay Shetty, submits that, a Similar View is taken in case of V. Srinivasan Vs. Sub-Registrar, Hiriyur and Another reported in ILR 1984 Kar 989. 9. Sri Chandrashekar C. Chanaspur, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No1. submits that the decisions relied upon by the petitioners side are in the context of the liability to pay the Court-fee and not the stamp value. The said decisions do not come to the rescue of the petitioner in any way. He has relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of V. Srinivasan (Supra). He read out the portion below the Head Note ‘A’, which is extracted hereinbelow:- “Lease deed contained recitals reserving a ten year period on annual rent of Rs.8 lacs, payable in advance at the beginning of each year and payment of Rs.8 lacs as advance, in two instalments Rs.2 lacs on signing of the agreement and Rs.6 lacs on completion of works and on the day property is delivered ready for production. However, there was no stipulation for the return of the advance or for its adjustment towards the end of the lease The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority While opining that the words ‘r for money advanced’ in Article 30(c), brought within its fold payment of rent in advance, the stamp duty being chargeable thereunder, however referred the matter.” 10. Sri Chandrashekar Chanaspur also bought to my notice the decision of this Court in the case of K. Amarnath Vs. Smt. Puttamma, reported in ILR 1999 Kar 4634. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow:- “18. Having identified and decided on the nature of the document, the next question that arises for consideration is whether it was properly stamped. If it is a usufructuary mortgage, conveyance on the mortgage amount under Article 34(a) of the schedule to the Karnataka Stamp Act. On the other hand, if the document is a deed of lease or even an agreement to lease, stamp duty will be payable under Article 30. For the purpose of stamp duty, it makes no difference whether the deed is a deed of lease or agreement to lease. Both require the same Stamp duty. On the other hand, if the document is a deed of lease or even an agreement to lease, stamp duty will be payable under Article 30. For the purpose of stamp duty, it makes no difference whether the deed is a deed of lease or agreement to lease. Both require the same Stamp duty. There is a Prevalent Wrong impression that Lease Deeds and lease agreements for a period of less than one year normally executed for eleven months) do not require registration and can be stamped as a mere Agreement. Once the terms of a lease are reduced to writing, the instrument requires to be stamped as per Article 30 and requires registration under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act. Even agreement/Deeds of lease which do not provide for payment of any rent, but merely provide for payment of a premium which is non-refundable or a deposit which is refundable at the end of the lease, are liable to stamp duty, the duty being at a rate equivalent to a conveyance on the value of such premium or deposit. Thus the deed dated 9.12.1984 which is a lease agreement was liable to a stamp duty of Rs.1,000/-under Article 30(b), the stamp paid is only Rs.5/-. The deficit stamp duty is Rs.995/-. Having Regard to Section 34 if the respondent wanted to overcome the bar against admissibility under the Stamp Act, he has to pay Rs.995/-as a deficit Stamp duty and Rs.9,950/-being ten time the deficit duty as penalty in all Rs.10,945/-. 11. Sri Chandrashekar Chanaspur Submits that the advance amount is paid in consideration for the grant of lease and therefore they constitute the ‘premium’ as defined under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The payment of such advance amount therefore attracts the payments of stamp duty under Article 30(2)(c) of the schedule. To buttress his submission he has relied on this Court’s Full Bench decision in the case of V. Srinivasan (Supra). 12. Sri Chanaspur brings to my notice the decision of this Court in the case of Leelamma Samuel Vs. Francis reported in ILR 1994 Kar 3143, wherein it is held that the duty on the amount paid by way of security deposit pursuant to the lease is payable as per Article 30(c) as if it is the ‘fine’ or ‘premium’ or ‘money advance’. 13. Francis reported in ILR 1994 Kar 3143, wherein it is held that the duty on the amount paid by way of security deposit pursuant to the lease is payable as per Article 30(c) as if it is the ‘fine’ or ‘premium’ or ‘money advance’. 13. Sri H. Hanumantharayappa, the learned Government Pleader submits that we have to go by the recitals of the documents than by the nomenclature. Going by the recitals, he submits that the document in question is chargeable under both Article 30(a)(i) and Article 30(1)(c) of the Schedule to the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. 14. The question that falls for my consideration is: “Whether the agreement of lease, dated 29.4.2001 attracts stamp duty on the rental amounts and on the advance amounts? I answer this question partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative. 15. The Full Bench in this Court in the case of The Chief Controlling Authority (supra) has held that amount reserved as refundable security deposit is not the money advanced in addition to the rent reserved and it does not attract the duty under Article 30(c) of the Schedule to the Act. Similarly, in the case of V. Srinivasan (supra) also it was held that the amount advanced is in the nature of premium, as there was no provision for the return of the advance. Therefore, the amount advanced could only be the consideration for the grant of lease. 16. The decision relied upon by the respondent’s side in the case of Leelamma Samuel (supra) is no more governing the field in view of decision rendered by the Full Bench subsequently in the Chief Controlling Authority’s case (supra). The decision in the case of K. Ramchandra Rao (supra) is in the context of Court fee. Different words like ‘Salami’ ‘Pugree’ and ‘Nazrana’ etc., are used in different parts of the country. Whatever be the nomenclature the tests are whether amount advanced is refundable or adjustable towards the arrears of the rent. If the amount so advanced is refundable, then it does not attract the payment of stamp duty. The payment of amount advanced would attract the stamp duty, if it goes irrevocably into the pocket of the landlord. If this proposition requires the authority, it is to be found in the case of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Delhi (supra). 17. If the amount so advanced is refundable, then it does not attract the payment of stamp duty. The payment of amount advanced would attract the stamp duty, if it goes irrevocably into the pocket of the landlord. If this proposition requires the authority, it is to be found in the case of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Delhi (supra). 17. In the result, I allow this petition in part by setting aside that part of the impugned order, dated 30.7.2009 (Annexure-M) which pertains to the stamp duty payable on the security deposit (shown as advance amount in the agreement of lease, dated 29.4.2001); that part of the order which Pertains to stamp duty on the rental amount is upheld. 18. No order as to costs.