CHERIYA CHAMY Vs. PATTAMBI GRAMA PANCHAYATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Writ Petitions raise the question as to the stamp duty to he paid under the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 for documents under which persons come into occupation of rooms belonging to Local Self Government Institutions. The question raised is as to whether such transactions would be lease as defined in S. 2(1) of that Act for levy of stamp duty or whether they are transactions of a different nature, to fall under the residuary clause. The petitioners argued that the transaction could only he licence and not lease and it has to be so understood in law.

(2.) It is not as if that this question is arising for decision for the first time before this Court. In Anandan v. Deputy Director of Panchayats,2000 1 KerLT 1 and in Abdulrahiman v. Tirur Municipality, 2001 2 KerLT 716, it has been clearly stated that the nomenclature of the transaction does not by itself decide the matter. It is also laid down in Mohandas Naval v.Kumhala Grama Panchayat, 2007 4 KerLT 367 that such transactions are lease for the purpose of the Stamp Act. These decisions are relied on by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the State, the beneficiary of the levy.

(3.) S. 215 of the Kerala Municipality Act 1994 apparently shows that the manner in which an L.S.G.I. can farm out the right to occupy its building is by creating a licence. Adverting to the rules framed under the Municipality Act it can be seen that the terms lease, licence, rent etc., are used to denote the modes of the transaction and the liability for payment etc.