JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.—An instrument dated 18.5.2004 was executed, the first party of which was petitioner and the second party was respondent No. 4 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL). By this instrument, it was agreed that on top floor of property of petitioner the second party BSNL will erect tower. The agreement for this instrument was for 5 years and under this agreement BSNL had to pay Rs. 4200/- per month as rent to petitioner. This instrument was mentioned as “agreement of lease”. It was also agreed between the parties to this instrument that the document shall be presented for registration by the lessor (petitioner) and shall be registered at the cost of said lessor. It was also agreed that this agreement of lease would be for 5-years only, and after that period it may be extended up to another 15 years. At the time of execution of this instrument stamp duty of Rs. 100/- was paid. After its registration, the respondent No. 3 had issued show-cause notice to petitioner regarding deficiency in payment of stamp duty, and after receiving petitioner’s objection, it had passed order dated 17.3.2009 by which it was held that for calculation of duty said instruments is lease deed for 20 years, and it had created rights of lessee in the property. On basis of these findings the respondent No. 3 had held that deficient stamp fees of Rs. 35,900/- should be paid by petitioner alongwith penalty and interest. Accordingly, direction was passed by respondent No. 3. Against said order of respondent No. 3, the Appeal No. 6 of 2009, Ashok Kumar Agarwal v. State of U.P., under Section 56(1) of Indian Stamp Act was preferred which was heard and dismissed by the judgment dated 6.8.2009 of respondent No. 2 Additional Commissioner (II), Aligarh Division, Aligarh. 2. Aggrieved by the above mentioned two impugned judgments of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner. 3. Counsel for the petitioner contended that although the instrument in question was mentioned in it as agreement of lease but, in fact, it was instrument of licence and there was no deficiency in stamp fees. He further submitted that under provision of Section 29-C of the Act, stamp fees shall be borne by lessee or grantee. In this case it is the respondent No. 4 (BSNL). He further submitted that under provision of Section 29-C of the Act, stamp fees shall be borne by lessee or grantee. In this case it is the respondent No. 4 (BSNL). Therefore, if it is accepted for the sake of argument that any additional stamp fees was to be charged then it should have been claimed from respondent No. 4 and not from the petitioner. His further submission is that in the instrument in question the petitioner had accepted liability to pay expenses of registration which does not include the stamp fees, which is payable by respondent No. 4 under the law. Therefore the demand of stamp fees from lessor/licensor (petitioner) is illegal and erroneous. His further submission is that instrument in question was only for 5 years and there was a clause in it that it may be extended for further 15 years, but in fact it was not instrument for 20 years, as was held by respondent No. 3 and 2 in their orders which are erroneous. Therefore, these orders should be quashed. 4. These submissions submissions were refuted by standing counsel, who submitted that the instrument in question fulfills all ingredients of lease-deed and it has been admitted between parties in the instrument itself that it is lease deed. Therefore, the petitioner is estopped from denying it. His submission is that the petitioner is liable to pay expenses relating to it, therefore writ petition should be dismissed. 5. From perusal of record and considering rival contentions of the parties this contention of the petitioner side is found unacceptable that instrument in question is not a lease deed because it fulfills the ingredients of a lease. But the relevant argument relating to liability of payment advanced on behalf of petitioner is found acceptable. Section 29-C of the Act has mandatory provision that expenses of stamp fees shall be borne by lessee/grantee which in present case was respondent No. 4. Therefore any deficient stamp fees, if any, should have been borne by respondent No. 4, and it should have been demanded from him. Even in case of alleged deficiency, legally it cannot be demanded or realized from the petitioner. 6. So far the respondents are concerned their legal duty is to realize alleged deficient stamp duty from the person who is legally liable to pay the same. Even in case of alleged deficiency, legally it cannot be demanded or realized from the petitioner. 6. So far the respondents are concerned their legal duty is to realize alleged deficient stamp duty from the person who is legally liable to pay the same. In this matter Section 29 of the Act provides that the lessee is liable to pay stamp fees. Therefore, if there was any deficiency in payment of stamp fees, then it should have been realized from respondent No. 4 and not from petitioner. 7. This contention of counsel for the petitioner is also acceptable that even according to terms mentioned in instrument in question, it was only the expenses of registration that was agreed to be borne by the petitioner, that did not include stamp fees. 8. This contention of counsel for the petitioner is also acceptable that instrument in question was acceptable for stamp fees for 5 years only and not for 20 years. The stamp fees for extended period cannot be considered unless said period of lease is extended and not before it. 9. In view of above, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 20.3.2009 passed by respondent No. 3 and judgment dated 6.8.2009 passed by respondent No. 2 are hereby set aside. The respondents are simultaneously directed to refund any amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders with simple interest @ 8% from the date of the deposit till its refund.