Substance over label determines lease status, and oil storage installations remain subject to municipal property tax exemption limits.

The substance of a grant, not its label, determines whether it creates a lease or a licence; exclusive possession, authority to erect permanent installations, payment described as rent, tax obligations, and termination on notice point to a lease. The note also states that government grant character does not displace the rights and obligations created by the instrument itself. Exemption from municipal property tax under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and Article 285 is said to be unavailable where the structures are not Union property in the relevant sense and the exemption must be strictly construed. Oil storage tanks and allied structures are treated as buildings for municipal assessment, supporting composite taxation under the Act.

---

---

Issues: Whether the grant for erection and operation of oil storage installations constituted a lease or a licence, and whether the property and installations were exempt from municipal property tax under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and Article 285 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The decisive test was the substance of the document and the intention of the parties, not the nomenclature used in it. The grant conferred exclusive possession, allowed construction of permanent installations, required payment described as rent, imposed tax liability on the grantee, and provided for termination on notice, all of which pointed to a lease rather than a mere licence. The special character of government grants did not alter the conclusion because the terms of the grant themselves created a bundle of rights consistent with a lease. The exemption under Section 119 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and Article 285 of the Constitution of India was inapplicable because the buildings and installations were not Union property in the relevant sense, and the exemption provision had to be construed strictly. The oil storage tanks and allied structures were liable to be treated as buildings for municipal taxation purposes, attracting composite assessment under the Act.

Conclusion: The grant was held to be a lease, not a licence, and the appellant was held liable to pay municipal property tax.

---