Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The Government of India declared the area where this property was situate to be a commercial area permitting the use of the land and buildings for commercial purposes. In order that the residential property No. 22, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi could be commercially exploited, a firm of builders M/s. Skipper Sales P. Ltd. entered into an agreement to purchase this property from its several co-sharers. Separate agreements dated 24th June, 1977 were entered between the said builder on the one hand and the respective co-sharers on the other. By agreement dated 24-6-1977, the assessee M/s. Atam Prakash & Sons agreed to sell its 1/6th share in the said property for a sum of Rs. 16 lakhs. However, for certain reasons the sale could not materialise and on 6-10-1981, there were two agreements between the assessee M/s. Atam Prakash & Sons, HUP and the said M/s. Skipper Sales P. Ltd. The first agreement provided that the agreement to sell referred to above would stand modified so as to convert the same into a collaboration agreement whereby the parties can mutually in furtherance of their objects proceed to construct the property. The agreement provided that a multistoreyed building would be erected on the said plot No. 22, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi by M/s. Skipper Sales P. Ltd. at their own cost and the assessee M/s. Atam Prakash & Sons, HUP would be given 6000 sq. ft. area and 3 garages in the said building. The agreement provided that the two parties would be equally the joint owner of the said venture with the clear understanding that the said HUP did not owe any liability or assets other than the space agreed to be provided to it on the completion of the project. The agreement mentioned that possession of the property had already been handed over to the builder (M/s. Skipper Sales P. Ltd.) on 24-8-1981. By the same agreement the owner of the property (M/s. Atam Prakash & Sons) granted an irrevocable authority to the builders for obtaining all permissions, sanctions and approvals for the development, construction and completion of the proposed commercial building on the said plot. The builders could sell portions of the proposed building to the prospective buyers.

4. In terms of the initial agreement to sell M/s. Skipper Sales P. Ltd. had paid Rs. 7,50,000 to the assessee-HUF. This amount was to continue to be retained by the assessee as security for the due performance by the builders.

5. On the same date, i.e., 6th October, 1981, there was another agreement between the assessee and the builders whereby the assessee agreed to sell to M/s, Skipper Sales P. Ltd, 4000 sq. ft, area and 2 garages of the proposed building for a consideration of Rs. 11 lakhs. This agreement provided that out of sum of Rs. 7,50,000 paid to the assessee as security by M/s. Skipper Sales P. Ltd. a sum of Rs. 6,50,000 will be appropriated towards the consideration of Rs. 11 lakhs after the multi-storeyed building has been constructed. The balance of Rs. 1 lakh was to be refunded by the assessee to M/s. Skipper Sales P. Ltd. at the time of handing over the possession of the area allocable to the assessee out of the consideration of Rs. 11 lakhs a further sum of Rs. 4,45,000 was paid to the assessee by M/s. Skipper Sales P. Ltd. as advance and the balance of Rs. 5,000 was to be paid at the time of the execution of the deed of conveyance.

6. Identical agreements were executed between the other assessee Shri Om Prakash and M/s. Skipper Sales P. Ltd. The initial agreement to sell in this case was dated 24th June, 1977. The collaboration agreement was dated 24th August, 1981. The share of this assessee mentioned in these documents as 1/6th. The consideration for the sale is mentioned at Rs. 16 lakhs and like M/s. Atam Prakash & Sons this assessee too by virtue of the collaboration agreement was to get 6000 sq. ft. of covered area and 3 garages in the proposed building. This assessee too entered into another agreement dated 24th August, 1981 by which like M/s. Atam Prakash & Sons had agreed to sell to M/s. Skipper Sales P. Ltd. 4000 sq. ft. of covered area and 2 garages. This assessee too had received similar amounts and the stipulations mentioned in the case of M/s. Atam Prakash & Sons were provided in the agreement with this assessee as well.

Where one person grants to another or to a definite number of other persons a right to do or to continue to do in or upon the immovable property of the grantor something which would in the absence of such right be unlawful and such right does not amount to assessment or an interest in the property, the right is called a licence.

The essential distinction between a lease and a licence is that in a lease there is transfer of interest in land while in the case of licence, there is no such transfer that although the licensee acquires a right to occupy the land-Sheo Narayan Chaudhury v. Stale of Bihar AIR 1957 Pat. 226. Thus under the collaboration agreement the builder M/s. Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. got merely a right to occupy the land for the sustenance of the building to be raised therein. We have to see whether the conferment of such right by the assessees to the builder would amount to a transfer within the meaning of Section 2(47). As already stated above, the learned Departmental Representative attempted to bring the case within Sub-clause (ii) of Section 2(47) which speaks of "the extinguishment of any rights therein as a mode of transfer." According to the learned Departmental Representative, a person may have various types of rights in a property and the word 'any' refers to any one or more of those rights. According to the learned counsel for the assessee on the other land, the word 'any' does not refer to one or more of the various rights that a person may have but it refers to the entirety of the rights that a particular person has in the property concerned. According to him, in respect of a single property various persons may have different types of rights. To illustrate his point, he referred to the facts of the present case. The Government of India is the owner of the land and is, therefore, vested with all those rights connected with the ownership which remain with an owner after he leases out the land to a particular person for a particular purpose. According to him, the assessees were the lessees of the land and their rights were different from that of the Government of India and the builders M/s. Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. have a yet different type of right in respect of the land i.e., a permission from the assessees to raise on the land in question a multi-storeyed building and to maintain it. According to him, each of the three persons has a different variety of rights in the same property and those rights constituted a capital asset in the hands of each with the result that each may transfer his rights to the extent permitted by law. According to the learned counsel, a transfer must be of the entirety of the rights that a particular person possesses and it is with respect to all those rights that the word 'any' has been used.