Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

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 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 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, 2000 KHC 1 : 2000 (1) KLT 1 : 1999 (2) KLJ 1026 and in Abdulrahiman v. Tirur Municipality, 2001 KHC 489 : 2001 (2) KLT 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 Nayak v. Kumbala Grama Panchayat, 2007 (4) KHC 170 : 2007 (4) KLT 367 : AIR 2008 Ker. 5 : 2008 (1) KLJ 509 that such transactions are lease for the purpose of the Stamp Act. These decisions are r