9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Whether stamp duty under Article 36 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 is payable for an agreement of lease dated 13-6-1994 executed by the respondents in favor of the appellants. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the interpretation of an agreement of lease dated 13-6-1994 to determine if stamp duty under Article 36 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 is applicable. The key issue is whether the agreement creates an immediate and present demise, as required by Explanation III of Article 36. The document is analyzed to ascertain if it conveys an interest in the land to the appellants. The agreement stipulates that the licensees have the authority to enter the land for erecting buildings but clarifies that it does not demise any interest in the land to the appellants until the lease is executed and registered. The judgment delves into the specific clauses of the agreement to establish the nature of the transaction. Clause 7 outlines the process for granting a lease upon compliance with certain conditions, indicating the intention of the parties to execute a lease in the future. It is emphasized that until the lease is executed, the status of the appellants remains that of a licensee. The document's language and provisions are scrutinized to determine if it confers a legal interest in the land to the appellants or if it merely grants a right to use the property for a specific purpose. The court refers to legal precedents to distinguish between a lease and a license, highlighting the Transfer of Property Act's definition of a lease as a transfer of a right to enjoy the property. The judgment underscores that a license grants only a right to use the property without transferring any interest in the land. The agreement in question is analyzed in light of these legal principles to ascertain whether it amounts to a lease or a license based on the nature of the rights conferred to the appellants. Ultimately, the court concludes that the agreement does not amount to a lease as it does not convey any legal interest in the land to the licensees. Clause 2 expressly states that the agreement does not constitute a demise in law, precluding the applicability of Article 36 of the Bombay Stamp Act. The judgment allows the appeal, setting aside the High Court's decision based on the interpretation of the agreement and the legal distinction between a lease and a license.
|
