Lease or Agreement to Lease? A Case Analysis of Deepak Fertilizers v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority
Deepak Fertilizers and Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority & Ors., Writ Petition No. 5635 of 2005, decided on 18 December 2025 by Justice Abhay Ahuja. (Verdictum) Background and Facts The dispute arose from an agreement executed on 13 October 1995 between Deepak Fertilizers and CIDCO under a scheme through which CIDCO allotted developed residential plots to industries for construction of staff housing. The material facts were: CIDCO announced a housing scheme for industries in Navi Mumbai. Deepak Fertilizers applied for a plot for construction of residential accommodation for its employees. CIDCO allotted a plot and the parties executed an Agreement dated 13 October 1995. The agreement contemplated that: the company would satisfy several conditions; construction had to be completed within stipulated time; only after compliance would a formal lease deed be executed. Possession given to the company was only for limited purposes connected with development and construction under the agreement. The Collector of Stamps held that the agreement itself amounted to a lease and demanded ad valorem stamp duty as applicable to leases. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority dismissed the company’s appeal. Deepak Fertilizers challenged those orders before the Bombay High Court. (Verdictum) Procedural History Authority Decision Collector of Stamps Held the agreement was a lease and liable to stamp duty as a lease Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Confirmed Collector’s order Bombay High Court Allowed the writ petition and set aside both orders Legal Issue The central legal issue was: Whether the Agreement dated 13 October 1995 created a present lease (demise) attracting stamp duty as a “Lease” under the Maharashtra Stamp Act, or whether it was merely an executory agreement to grant a lease in future. In simple words: Did the document itself create leasehold rights? or Was it only a promise that a lease would be executed later after conditions were fulfilled? Petitioner’s Arguments Deepak Fertilizers argued that: the document repeatedly described itself as an Agreement; it did not transfer any present interest in land; no leasehold estate came into existence immediately; execution of a future lease deed was expressly contemplated; possession was limited and conditional; therefore the agreement could not be stamped as a lease. The company relied upon earlier Bombay High Court decisions distinguishing between: agreement to lease actual lease Respondents’ Arguments The Revenue and CIDCO contended that: possession had already been handed over; the company had substantial rights over the property; practical enjoyment had commenced; therefore the agreement should be treated as a lease for stamp purposes. Core Legal Question Considered by the Court The Court examined a classical property law distinction: Does the document itself create a present demise? If yes → it is a lease. If no → it is merely an agreement to lease. This distinction has existed in Indian property law for decades. Court’s Reasoning Justice Abhay Ahuja analysed the document clause-by-clause. The Court emphasized that the substance of the document—not merely possession or nomenclature—determines its legal character. (Verdictum) No Present Transfer of Interest The Court observed that: ownership remained with CIDCO; no present leasehold estate was transferred; the agreement only created contractual obligations. This is the most important […]
Read more
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2026 – Key Amendments Explained Q and A
Description: Learn about the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2026, including changes to Sections 73AAA, 73B, 73C, 73CB, 73F, 81 and 157, their legal implications, and what co-operative societies need to do to comply. Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2026: What Every Co-operative Society Should Know The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2026 has introduced several important changes to the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Although the amendments are limited to a few provisions, they significantly impact the governance, election process, committee administration, and regulatory compliance of co-operative societies across Maharashtra. The amendments primarily strengthen the role of the State Co-operative Election Authority (SCEA), streamline the procedure for filling committee vacancies, update audit thresholds, and improve transparency in the management of co-operative societies. Whether you are a committee member, housing society office bearer, director of a credit society, auditor, advocate, chartered accountant, or consultant, understanding these amendments is essential for ensuring statutory compliance. Why Was the Amendment Necessary? The co-operative sector in Maharashtra is one of the largest in India, comprising housing societies, credit societies, consumer societies, agricultural societies, industrial co-operatives, and numerous other institutions. Over the years, practical issues emerged relating to: delays in filling committee vacancies; disputes concerning multiple-seat elections; lack of uniform supervision during committee proceedings; ambiguity regarding election authorities; and outdated financial thresholds. The Amendment Act addresses these concerns by introducing clearer procedures and strengthening institutional oversight. Key Amendments Introduced by the 2026 Amendment Act Amendment to Section 73AAA – Exemption for Type “A” Societies The first proviso to Section 73AAA(3) has been deleted. Further, the second proviso has been amended to exclude committees of Type “A” Societies prescribed under Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014. Practical Impact The amendment differentiates Type “A” societies from other classes of co-operative societies for the purpose of this provision. Societies falling within this category should carefully examine whether the amended provision applies to them before initiating committee-related actions. Amendments to Sections 73B and 73C – Greater Election Supervision Sections 73B and 73C deal with representation of reserved categories on the managing committee. The Amendment Act now provides that whenever vacancies are filled under these provisions, the committee meeting must be presided over by an officer authorized by the State Co-operative Election Authority (SCEA). Why This Matters Earlier, committee meetings were conducted internally, which occasionally resulted in procedural disputes. Independent supervision by an authorized election officer is expected to: improve transparency; reduce allegations of bias; ensure procedural compliance; and increase confidence in the election process. Amendment to Section 73CB – Clarification of Election Authorities Section 73CB contains provisions relating to election administration. The Explanation has now been amended by specifically referring to: Divisional Co-operative Election Officers; District Co-operative Election Officers; Taluka Co-operative Election Officers; Ward Co-operative Election Officers; Observers; and Zonal Officers. Importance The amendment removes ambiguity by expressly identifying the authorities responsible for election-related functions. This provides greater administrative certainty during election proceedings. Complete Substitution of Section 73F – Election to Multiple Committee Seats One of the most significant amendments is the complete substitution of Section 73F. Earlier Position The earlier provision did […]
Read more
THE JURISPRUDENCE OF SMEAR CAMPAIGNS: CONSTITUTIONAL, CIVIL, AND REGULATORY RESPONSES ACROSS COMMON LAW JURISDICTIONS
SUBJECT: SMEAR CAMPAIGNS AND THE LAW: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF INDIA, THE UNITED STATES, THE UNITED KINGDOM, AND SINGAPORE It is obvious that, youths learn from what is talked in public. The icons are leaders, actors, politicians and those who are in public life. It’s easy in India to smear someone’s reputation. Reason is weak provisions. In India opposition leader who come from high profile family uses all his conveniences and power to disrepute and threaten all Competent Authorities. But he escapes without a scratch. Dialogues in Hindi movies like “kya karlega tera kanoon” also played important role. In my childhood we were taught by mothers not to say insulting or false about others. It was considered as sin. However it appears that deity of Karma is also tired of dealing with falsehood and false public allegations. There is a wait list for justice there too. A famous bhajan ” ninda a kare keni re” loved by Bapu is forgotten. With this common parlance discussion lets turn to the legal discussion. USA: UAE-Backed Dark PR (2023): The United Arab Emirates (UAE) hired Swiss firm Alp Services to conduct a covert, multi-year smear campaign targeting a US-based businessman, Hazim Nada, and his commodities-trading firm, Lord Energy. The campaign manipulated markets and successfully forced the company into liquidation by spreading false allegations of terrorist. ( check https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/can-an-american-hold-the-united-arab-emirates-responsible-for-a-smear-campaign) Martin Luther King Jr. FBI Surveillance (1960s): The FBI under J. Edgar Hoover orchestrated a massive, covert operation to discredit Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., labelling him a subversive. The agency sent defamatory packages, wiretapped his communications, and urged him to commit suicide to silence his activism. ( check: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-releases-report-fbi-crusade-against-martin-luther-king-jr-urges-ashcroft-not ) Planned Parenthood Foetal Tissue Controversy (2015): Anti-abortion groups released deceptively edited videos to accuse Planned Parenthood of illegally selling foetal tissue for profit. The healthcare organization denounced the effort as a fabricated smear campaign designed to cut off their federal funding. ( check https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34396751) UNITED KINGDOM: The Sir David Attenborough Climate Campaign (2019–2023): Following the release of the Netflix documentary Our Planet, which featured footage of Pacific walruses falling to their deaths, climate change deniers initiated a widespread smear campaign against Attenborough. The attackers falsely alleged that he and the production crew fabricated the tragedy to artificially push climate change narratives. (https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/climate-change-deniers-continue-smear-campaign-against-sir-david-attenborough/) The Labour Together Corporate Intelligence Report (2024–2026): In a major political controversy, it was revealed that the UK think tank Labour Together commissioned a US public relations firm (APCO) to compile a 58-page report, codenamed “Operation Cannon”. The report targeted journalists at the Sunday Times who were investigating the group’s campaign funding and attempted to discredit them by alleging foreign interference and making personal attacks. SINGAPORE Singtel vs. Telco Rivals (2015) The Incident: Telecommunications giant Singtel and social media agency Gushcloud were exposed for running an orchestrated online smear campaign against rival telcos StarHub and M1. Details: Bloggers were paid and incentivized to fabricate complaints and criticize the network connections of the rival telcos. Resolution: Following whistleblowing by blogger Xiaxue, Singtel’s CEO publicly apologized, the responsible employees were fired, and the Infocomm Development Authority (IDA) issued a stern warning to the telco. (check https://www.campaignasia.com/article/ethical-crackdown-regulating-singapores-influencer-scene/2xnaatoej5nqkwmj28qr5s2lyl) […]
Read more
Committees Are Not Courts: Bombay High Court Draws the Line
STOP PLAYING JUDGE: HOUSING SOCIETIES CANNOT DECIDE TITLE An interesting case came up before the Bombay High Court, where aforesaid issue was argued and decided. Facts of the case are as under: The dispute concerns ownership of Flat No. 31 in a Malad housing society in Mumbai. The flat was purchased around 1969–70 by Ramlal Dhanuka using his own funds but was registered jointly in his name and Pannadevi (wife of his son D. R. Dhanuka). Ramlal had three sons—D. R. Dhanuka, K. R. Dhanuka, and Radheshyam Dhanuka (Respondent No. 4)—who later occupied different flats bought by him. After Ramlal and his wife died in 1989, the sons became legal heirs. In 2007, Pannadevi filed a suit claiming exclusive ownership of the disputed flat and denying any rights of Radheshyam. She died in 2008, and her legal heirs continued the case. Meanwhile, an order was passed restraining the housing society from transferring or dealing with the flat’s membership rights until the suit is decided. Core issue: Whether the flat belongs exclusively to Pannadevi or forms part of the family property. Now let us see the arguments of the Petitioner: the Society argued that Respondent No. 4 wrongly applied for transfer of membership instead of transmission after the member’s death and failed to follow mandatory procedures under Bye-Law 35, including public notice and verification of legal heirs, while also submitting an incomplete application. It also argued that there are disputes among heirs; society further contended that the Divisional Joint Registrar lacked jurisdiction to hear a revision against the Deputy Registrar’s order, but the Court rejected this, holding that cooperative societies only perform limited administrative roles (not deciding ownership, as noted in Usha Jhaveri vs State of Maharashtra) and that revisional authority remains valid despite delegation of powers, thereby upholding the legality of such review. Respondent member argued that: After the earlier suit concerning the flat was unconditionally withdrawn in 2012, clearing disputes over title, Respondent No. 4 applied for membership as a legal heir, but the society failed to decide his application, leading him to seek deemed membership and later file a revision; he argued that the society had effectively recognized him by accepting maintenance charges and that minor defects in the application form should not defeat his substantive claim of succession, while also relying on lack of opposition from key family members, whereas the petitioners contended that multiple heirs existed and the application was invalid due to incorrect form and procedure; the Court, however, emphasized that substance prevails over form, held that the application was essentially for transmission based on inheritance despite technical errors, found that the alleged disputes among heirs were not strong enough to justify inaction, and rejected the jurisdictional objection, thereby supporting the validity of the revisional proceedings and Respondent No. 4’s claim being considered. It was held by the Bombay High Court that: the dispute before the society was not about ownership/title, but merely about recognition of membership after the death of a member, making it an issue of internal administration rather than adjudication of property rights. It emphasized that Section 30 of the Maharashtra Cooperative […]
Read more
CAN A HOUSING SOCIETY SELL TDR TO A PRIVATE MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY UNDER DOCUMENT OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND RESOLUTIONS?
JURISDICTION OF CO-OPERATIVE COURT AND BINDING NATURE OF SOCIETY RESOLUTIONS Let us first see what is TDR? Transferring Development Rights (TDR) by a housing society involves the society, as a landowner, generating extra buildable area (TDR) by surrendering land for public use (like roads, parks) to the municipality, receiving a TDR certificate (or Development Right Certificate – DRC), and then selling these rights to a developer or another party to build more than standard Floor Space Index (FSI) allows, benefiting both the society (compensation for land) and the buyer (extra construction rights). This process helps fund infrastructure projects and allows societies to get value for reserved plots, making TDR a crucial tool in urban development, especially in places like Mumbai. How it Works for a Society: Land Surrender: The housing society owns land, often designated for public amenities (e.g., a playground, road widening) by the city. TDR Generation: Instead of cash compensation, the Municipal Corporation (like MCGM in Mumbai) issues a TDR certificate (DRC) to the society, representing the Floor Space Index (FSI) potential of the surrendered land. Selling the Rights: The society can then sell this certificate to a builder or another property owner. Utilisation: The buyer uses the TDR to construct additional built-up area on their own plot, exceeding the normal FSI limits, often in a designated “receiving zone”. Benefits of TDR for Societies Financial Compensation: Provides funds for the society (often through developers) without the government paying cash, allowing land acquisition for public projects. Development Incentive: Encourages development and helps resolve land reservations, as owners get value for undevelopable land. Legal Avenue: Offers a way for societies and trusts to utilize or sell their development potential POINT OF CAUTION: A Housing Society cannot legally sell Transferable Development Rights (TDR) to a private member using only a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and Resolutions. TDR transactions must follow a formal, regulated process involving proper documentation and approval from the competent authorities to be legally valid. Legal Requirements for TDR Transfer : TDR is a formal legal instrument: TDR is an official development right issued by a municipal authority as a Development Right Certificate (DRC). This certificate is a tradeable commodity, similar to a stock, in a formal market. Formal Agreements are Required: Any transaction involving the sale or transfer of TDR requires a registered agreement, such as a formal TDR Sale Agreement, not just an MoU or simple resolutions. The agreement must be registered under the Registration Act, 1908. Statutory Compliance and Oversight: The transaction must comply with the relevant state laws, such as the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, 1966, and local Development Control Regulations (DCRs). Regulatory Approvals: The transfer must be registered with the Sub-Registrar and updated on the relevant municipal or urban local body’s (ULB) online TDR portal (if available). Authorities track the chain of ownership and usage of TDRs to prevent misuse and ensure transparency. Transparency and Fair Value: Transactions by a housing society, especially those involving a private member, are subject to scrutiny to ensure the society receives fair market value and to prevent irregularities or fraud. Risks of Using Only […]
Read more
UNTRACEABLE MEMBERS AND PROPERTY RIGHTS IN COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETIES: PROCEDURES AND PRECEDENTS
In the model bye-laws of a cooperative housing society (such as those in Maharashtra), a member is deemed to have ceased membership if their whereabouts are unknown for a continuous period of seven years and their shares and interest in the property are unclaimed by anyone else. This cessation allows the society to take further action regarding the property. Procedures and Provisions While specific actions for handling the property itself require legal procedures beyond just the society’s internal rules, the bye-laws provide a framework for managing the situation and ultimately dealing with the ownership: Cessation of Membership: Bye-law No. 55(f) (in the Maharashtra Model Bye-laws) explicitly states that a person shall cease to be a member if their whereabouts are not known for seven continuous years and no claim is made on their interest in the property. However, the associate member shall not cease to be Associate Member when the First Member ceases to be the member of the society if Associate Member holds title and interest in the property jointly with the member. The Committee shall take further action in the matter as indicated in the Bye-law No. 62. Vesting of Shares/Interest: If, after a member’s death or disappearance, there is no claimant (nominee, heir, or legal representative), their shares and interest in the capital/property of the society will vest in the society itself. Nominations and Legal Heirs: The bye-laws heavily emphasize the importance of nomination (Bye-law No. 32-34). If an owner is untraceable and has no nominee, the committee would typically ask for a legal representative or heir to come forward. Payment of Dues: The untraceable owner’s account would likely accumulate unpaid maintenance charges and other dues, incurring interest (up to 21% per annum in some model bye-laws). These liabilities must typically be cleared before any transfer of interest can occur. Formal Communication: The society uses formal communication methods, such as registered post to the last known address or displaying notices on the society’s notice board, which are considered valid service of notice even if the member is untraceable. The society must maintain records of all sent notices as proof. Committee Action: The managing committee has the power to manage the society’s affairs (Bye-law No. 111), which includes dealing with non-compliance and cessation of membership. They are responsible for initiating the process of addressing the untraceable owner’s status. Registrar and Courts: The final authority in serious disputes or complex situations, such as an untraceable owner with no clear legal path forward, ultimately lies with the Registrar of Cooperative Societies or a Cooperative Court. The society would likely need to approach these legal bodies for formal orders to take control of or dispose of the property. DISCUSSION: A is member and have signed Conveyance. A is not traceable for more than 40 years. Taking advantage of situation widow of promoter applies for membership. It was rejected. During course of arguments she sell the flat. After two decades the flat goes for redevelopment. The purchaser of the flat sells flat to the third party. Society refuses all a membership, In a recent ruling of Supreme Court of India K, Gopi […]
Read more
“LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF UNTRACEABLE SELLERS AND OWNERS IN HOUSING SOCIETY SHARE TRANSFERS”
Today we are discussing very important issue of transfer of shares in a society when a seller is not traceable and when Owner is not traceable. What is the difference between the two? Before going to the core issue let us first learn definition of the term “member” under the Maharashtra Co-operative Society Act 1960 and the Bye-laws. Bye-Laws 3 (xxiv) “Member” means a person joining in an application for the Registration of a Cooperative Housing Society which is subsequently registered, or a person duly admitted to Membership of a Society after Registration and who holds the right, title and interest in the property individually or jointly; Share Capital: a.) A Share Certificate, prescribed in bye-laws, bearing distinctive number and indicating the name of the Member, the number of shares issued and the value paid there on, shall be issued by the Society to every Member for the shares subscribed by him, within a period of six months of the allotment of the shares. Conditions of Membership: 19. An individual / applicant who is eligible to be the Member and who has applied for Membership of the Society in the prescribed form, may admitted as Member by the Committee on complying with the following conditions :- i. applicant has fully tendered the value of at least Ten shares of the Society, along with his Application for Membership; ii. applicant has paid the Entrance Fee of Rs. 100/-, along with the Application for Membership; iii. applicant has submitted the application as prescribed, of the particulars in regard to any house, plot or flat owned by him or any of the Members of his family, anywhere in the area of operation of the Society; iv. applicant has submitted undertaking in the prescribed form to the effect that he shall use the flat / unit for the purpose for which it was purchased by him; v. applicant has furnished an undertaking in the prescribed form, if he / she has no independent source of income; vi. applicant has submitted, along with the application for Membership of the Society, a certified copy of the agreement, duly stamped and registered entered into by him / her/ them with the Promoter Builder or Transferor under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act;applicant has furnished such other undertakings/declarations, in the prescribed forms as are required under any law for the time being in force and such other information as is required under the Bye-laws of the Society along with the application for Membership. viii. In case of Societies registered under the jurisdiction of special planning Authority like CIDCO / MHADA / SRA / MMRDA etc. the applicant should be eligible person as per the provision of respective Act and the directives of the Govt. / the Planning Authorities, if any. Note : The conditions at (iii), (iv), (v), and (vii) above shall not be applicable to the Promoter Builder, applying for Membership of the Society, in respect of the unsold flats. An Individual, a Firm, a Company or a Body Corporate, registered under any Law for the time being in force, who/ which is eligible to be an Associate Member and who/which shall […]
Read more
CRITICAL ROLE OF TITLE CLEARANCE IN REDEVELOPMENT
In a redevelopment project, it is highly recommended to verify and clear the property’s title first before formally deciding on and appointing a builder. While a builder can be tentatively selected (e.g., via a Letter of Intent or a resolution in a Special General Body Meeting), formalizing the development agreement and starting the actual project activities (like demolition or construction) without a clear and marketable title creates significant legal and financial risks. Why Title Clearance is Crucial First Legal Requirement: For a builder to obtain necessary municipal approvals and a Commencement Certificate (CC) to begin construction, the society must generally have a clear and marketable title to the land. This is often achieved through a registered conveyance deed or “deemed conveyance”. Risk Mitigation: Unclear land titles are a common source of delays and litigation in redevelopment projects. Title disputes can halt the project indefinitely, leaving both the builder and the society members in a precarious situation (e.g., displaced and without their new homes). Financial Safeguard: A clear title ensures the project is legally sound and makes it easier for the builder to secure project financing and for future buyers in the free-sale component to get home loans. This financial stability is a key factor in a project’s success. Transparency and Trust: Conducting thorough legal due diligence, including title verification, at an early stage demonstrates transparency and helps build trust between the society members and the chosen developer. Recommended Order of Operations (General Steps) Initial Decisions & Structural Audit: The society discusses redevelopment and conducts a structural audit to determine feasibility. Appoint Professionals: An architect/Project Management Consultant (PMC) and a legal advisor are appointed to guide the process. Title Verification/Conveyance: The society’s legal team conducts comprehensive title verification and works to obtain a clear conveyance deed or deemed conveyance for the property. Builder Selection: Once the title is confirmed, a transparent tendering process is used to select a reputable builder with a proven track record, financial stability, and relevant experience. Formal Agreements: A detailed Development Agreement (DA) and individual Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements (PAAA) are meticulously drafted, vetted by legal experts, and registered. Project Commencement: The builder then seeks the required approvals (IOD, CC, etc.) and begins construction. Prioritizing title clearance helps safeguard the interests of all stakeholders and ensures a smoother, legally compliant redevelopment process. HOW FAR A CERTIFICATE OF TITLE BY A SOLICITOR/ ADVOCATE IS SIGNIFICANT? In Ramniklal Tulsidas Kotak And Others vs Varsha Builders And Others on 26 August, 1991 Equivalent citations: AIR1992BOM62, AIR 1992 BOMBAY 62, (1993) MAH LJ 323, (1992) 2 BANKCAS 441, (1992) 2 BOM CR 492 “(1) A Certificate of Title need not necessarily be unconditional or unqualified. It can be qualified to the limited extent of the implied statutory exception contained in Section 3(2)(b) of the Maharashtra Ownerships Flats Act, 1963, as interpreted above. The Format of the Certificate of Title prescribed by the rules is mandatory, subject only to a limited scope for adaptability as explained in the judgment. A qualified certificate of title must furnish all relevant information as set out in paragraph 19 of this judgment. (2) The Promoter must […]
Read more
FRAUDULENT RECORDS CREATED BY MANAGING COMMITTEE – EFFECT ON REVERSIONARY INTEREST- CONSEQUENCES
WHAT IS THE PROCESS OF PURCHASING REVERSIONARY INTEREST? IS DEEMED CONVEYANCE A FINAL TITLE WITHOUT CONVEYANCE OF REVERSIONARY INTEREST? DOES REVERSIONARY INTEREST EXTINGUISH AFTER GETTING DEEMED CONVEYANCE? WHAT ARE CONSEQUENCES OF FRAUD PLAYED BY THE COMMITTEE BY FABRICATING TITLE RECORDS? First let us see What is Lease? Under Transfer of Property Act 1882 its defined in Section 105 Lease defined. A lease of immoveable 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 a price paid or promised, or of money, a share of crops, service or any other thing of value, to be rendered periodically or on specified occasions to the transferor by the transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms. Lessor, lessee, premium and rent defined. — The transferor is called the lessor, the transferee is called the lessee, the price is called the premium, and the money, share, service or other thing to be so rendered is called the rent How is Lease determined? It is provided in the Transfer of Property Act 1882. Section 111 Determination of lease. — A lease of immoveable property determines—(a)by efflux of the time limited thereby;(b)where such time is limited conditionally on the happening of some event—by the happening of such event;(c)where the interest of the lessor in the property terminates on, or his power to dispose of the same extends only to, the happening of any event—by the happening of such event;(d)in case the interests of the lessee and the lessor in the whole of the property become vested at the same time in one person in the same right;(e)by express surrender; that is to say, in case the lessee yields up his interest under the lease to the lessor, by mutual agreement between them;(f)by implied surrender;(g)by forfeiture; that is to say, (1) in case the lessee breaks an express condition which provides that, on breach thereof, the lessor may re-enter; or (2)in case the lessee renounces his character as such by setting up a title in a third person or by claiming title in himself; or (3)the lessee is adjudicated an insolvent and the lease provides that the lessor may re-enter on the happening of such event; and in any of these cases the lessor or his transferee gives notice in writing to the lessee of his intention to determine the lease; (h)on the expiration of a notice to determine the lease, or to quit, or of intention to quit, the property leased, duly given by one party to the other. Illustration to clause (f)A lessee accepts from his lessor a new lease of the property leased, to take effect during the continuance of the existing lease. This is an implied surrender of the former lease, and such lease determines thereupon. DEEMED CONVEYANCE- REVERSIONARY INTEREST Buying private reversionary rights means, purchasing the right of an original owner (Reversioner) to get their property back after a temporary interest (like a lease or life estate) ends. This process involves a formal “Deed of Conveyance” to transfer these future ownership rights, allowing the buyer […]
Read more
FORFEITURE AND WITHDRAWAL FROM AGREEMENT TO BUY A FLAT
BLANKET CONSENT An agreement with the builder includes pre-printed clauses that secure the interests of the promoter or builder. In a way it’s a business because the promoter is investing huge sums of money, and he wants its security. Godrej Projects Development Limited vs Anil Karlekar on 3 February, 2025 A question arose in the matter of Godrej Properties at Gurgaon, Haryana. Mr. A books a flat and pays a sum of Rs.51 lakhs approx. But upon issuing letter of allotment, the buyer instead of taking possession of the flat agreed he opted for cancellation of the Agreement. He cited the recession in the real estate industry and sought a full refund of the money. A legal notice was served and subsequently flat buyer filed a consumer complaint. The NCDRC disposed of the Consumer Complaint by directing the Appellant to deduct only 10% of the BSP ( Base Sale Price) only towards cancellation of the Complainants’ Apartment and refund the balance amount Rs.34 lakhs along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of each payment till the date of refund within three months. The standard clause in the purchase agreement was : Agreement entered into between the Parties, which read thus: “2.6 It has been specifically agreed between the Parties that, 20% of the Basic Sale Price, shall be considered and treated as earnest money under this Agreement (“Earnest Money”), to ensure the performance, compliance and fulfillment of the obligations and responsibilities of the Buyer under this Agreement. It has been made clear by the Developer and the Buyer has understood that the Sale Consideration and Statutory Charges as mentioned in Schedule VI hereto have been computed on the basis of Super Built Up Area of the Apartment. The Buyer agrees that the calculation of Super Built Up Area in respect of the Apartment is tentative at this stage and subject to variations till the Completion of Construction. In case such variations are beyond +/- 5%, then the Developer shall take prior consent of the Buyer. 8.4 On and from the date of such termination on account of Buyer’s Event of Default as mentioned above (“Termination Date”), the Parties mutually agree that- (i) The Developer shall, out of the entire amounts paid by the Buyer to the Developer till the Termination Date, forfeit the entire Earnest Money and any other dues payable by the Buyer including interest on delayed payments as specified in this Agreement. (ii) After the said forfeiture, the Developer shall refund the balance amount to the Buyer or to his banker/financial institution, as the case may be, without any interest; (iii) On and from the Termination Date, the Buyer shall be left with no right, title, interest, claim, lien, authority whatsoever either in respect of the Apartment or under this Agreement and the Developer shall be released and discharged of all its liabilities and obligations under this Agreement. (iv) On and from the Termination Date, the Developer shall be entitled, without any claim or interference of the Buyer, to convey, sell, transfer and/or assign the Apartment in favour of third party(ies) or otherwise deal […]
Read more