MOHAMMED K Vs. CALICUT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions raise the question as to the stamp duty to be 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 Section 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 be 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 and in abdulrahiman v. Tirur Municipality, 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 Nayak v. Kumbala Grama Panchayat that such transactions are lease for the purpose of the Stamp Act. These decisions are relied onby the learned Government Pleader onbehalf of the State, the beneficiary of the levy.

(3.) SECTION 215 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 apparently shows that the manner in which an LSGI 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 modus of the transaction and the liability for payment etc.