High Court Of Delhi
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI - Respondent
Decided On : 09/11/1996
PROPERTY TAX - LEASE OR LICENSE - INTERPRETATION OF AGREEMENT - INTENTION OF PARTIES - EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION - INTEREST IN LAND - LIABILITY TO PAY TAX - DMC ACT, SECTION 119, 120(1)(C), 120(2) - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ARTICLE 285.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a corporation dealing in oil and petroleum products, was permitted by the Government of India, Ministry of Railways, to use a plot of land for the expeditious decanting of petroleum products from railway wagons. The petitioner raised constructions on the land and carried on their business from the property. The respondent, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, raised demand for property tax on the property, contending that the petitioner was a lessee and liable to pay tax under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (DMC Act). The petitioner challenged the demand, arguing that they were a licensee and not liable to pay tax under the DMC Act or Article 285 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was a lessee and not a licensee, based on the following factors: 1. Exclusive possession: The petitioner had exclusive possession of the property, including the constructions thereon, without any let or hindrance from the Government of India. 2. Interest in land: The petitioner was allowed to raise constructions on the land and run their business from the property, creating an interest in land in their favor. 3. Payment of taxes: The petitioner was required to pay all rates, cesses, and taxes leviable on the land and buildings, indicating an intention to create a lease.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was a lessee or a licensee under the agreements with the Government of India. 2. Whether the petitioner was liable to pay property tax under the DMC Act and Article 285 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court applied the principles of law governing the distinction between a lease and a license to interpret the agreements between the petitioner and the Government of India. 2. The court held that the petitioner was a lessee and not a licensee, based on factors such as exclusive possession, interest in land, and payment of taxes. 3. The court concluded that the petitioner was liable to pay property tax under Section 120(2) of the DMC Act, which imposes tax on tenants who have built on leased land for a term exceeding one year.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both writ petitions filed by the petitioner, upholding the respondent's demand for property tax.
( 1 ) THESE are two writ petitions bearing Nos. 133/96 and 386/96. They are being taken up together as the parties in the two petitions are the same and the properties which have been subjected to the property tax are also the same. Furthermore, common questions of law and facts are likely to arise while disposing of the said petitions.
( 2 ) THE petitioner through the present writ petitions have sought an injunction from this Court restraining the respondent from giving any effect to the demand bill Nos. 3 and 6 both dated July 14, 1995 raised on account of the property tax pertaining to the properties bearing Nos. WZ-5 and WZ-11, Shakur Basti, Delhi respectively. They further want through the present writ petitions quashment of the assessment order pertaining to the year 1995-96 with a direction to the respondent not to raise any demand on account of the property tax in respect of the abovesaid properties. Corporation of Delhi.
( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the parties made a statement before the Court on August 27, 1996 that they confine themselves to the point as to whether the petitioner are liable to pay property tax in view of the provisions of Section 119 of the DMC Act and Art. 285 of the Constitution of India ? They further stated vide their statements that they are not pressing any other point for determination by this Court in the present two writ petitions. In the abovestated circumstances this Court need not dwell upon any other point except the issue adverted to above raised by them during the course of their lengthy arguments.
( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Mr. Vikramjit Sen has argued with all the vehemence at his command that the petitioner are a Corporation. It deals in oil and petroleum products. It was permitted by Government of India, Ministry of Railways, to use a plot of land during the course of their business vide the licence agreements dated October 29, 1958 and March 20, 1962 (Annexure a ). The underlying idea while permitting the use of the abovesaid plot of land through the afore-mentioned agreement was the expeditious decanting of the petroleum products from the railway wagons. Most of the land which is the subject-matter of the said licence agreements consists of sidings on which the goods trains are parked. The licence fee as per the said agreements was Rs. 21,000 per annum. Thus the said land merely by the permission to use it does not become the land of the petitioner. It continues to remain the property of the Government of India. Hence it is not liable to any property tax under Art. 285 of the Constitution of India and Section 19 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act ( dmc Act for a short ).
( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent Mrs. Madhu Tewatia. on the other hand, has urged that the petitioner are not a licensee under the said agreement adverted to above. In fact, they are a lessee and as such they are liable to pay property tax like any other tenant. Hence the case of the petitioner does not fall within the domain of Art. 285 of the Constitution of India and Section 119 of the DMC Act.
( 6 ) IT is abundantly clear from above that the bone of contention in between the parties is as to whether the petitioner are a licensee within the meaning of Section 52 of the Indian Easement Act, 1882 or a lessee as defined in Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act ?
( 7 ) SINCE we are concerned with the construction of Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 52 of the Easement Act it would be in the fitness of things to examine the provisions of the said Sections before embarking upon a detailed discussion of law and facts Section. 105 of the Transfer of Property Act is in the following words :-
"a lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made for a certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of aprice paid or promised, or of money, a share of crops, service or any other thing of value, to be
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.