TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds lease renewal every 10 years, not perpetuity violation</h1> <h3>R. Kempraj Versus Barton Son and Co.</h3> The court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the option for a lessee to renew a lease every 10 years did not violate the rule against perpetuity as per ... - Issues:1. Whether an option given to a lessee to renew a lease every 10 years is void under the rule of perpetuity.Analysis:The judgment in question pertains to an appeal from the Mysore High Court regarding the validity of an option given to a lessee for lease renewal every 10 years. The lease agreement allowed the lessee to renew the lease for further periods of 10 years on the same terms and conditions. The lessor failed to comply with the lessee's request for renewal, leading to a lawsuit for specific performance. The central issue revolved around whether the option for renewal violated the rule against perpetuity as per Section 14 of the Transfer of Property Act.The rule against perpetuity, as enshrined in Section 14 of the Act, prohibits the creation of interests that extend beyond the lifetime of individuals living at the time of transfer. The court highlighted that a lease is a transfer of a right in property, creating a leasehold interest that may extend in perpetuity, with the lessor retaining a reversionary interest. In this case, the lease was initially for 10 years, with clauses allowing for renewal at the lessee's discretion. The court emphasized that the renewal clauses did not constitute a transfer of property or any rights therein, as the lease was limited to 10 years initially.Drawing from legal precedents, the court distinguished the present case from English law examples where covenants for perpetual renewal were upheld. The judgment referenced a Patna High Court decision that clarified how options for a lessor to resume leasehold land were personal covenants, not creating interests in land subject to the rule against perpetuity. Additionally, the court cited English cases where covenants for renewal were deemed to run with the land, exempting them from perpetuity concerns.Moreover, the judgment delved into Section 40 of the Act, which addresses the enforcement of covenants for the beneficial enjoyment of immovable property. The court explained that even if the clauses for lease renewal were considered covenants running with the land, they did not create interests in property that would trigger Section 14's perpetuity restrictions. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, asserting that the clauses for lease renewal did not violate the rule against perpetuity, as no interest in property of the nature contemplated by the provision had been created.In conclusion, the judgment elucidates the application of the rule against perpetuity to lease renewal options and clarifies that such clauses, when not creating interests in property beyond the permissible limits, do not contravene the statutory provisions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
