https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286105 Correspondence and receipt did not create a concluded lease because the material terms remained subject to finalisation of the lease deed. The Rs. 1 lakh payment was therefore token money, not advance rent, and could not be retained by the defendant. The defendant's unclear disclosure of its capacity to lease amounted to misrepresentation, although the absence of an occupancy certificate did not by itself invalidate an agreement to lease. The counter-claim for damages and interest failed for want of proof of recoverable loss, and additional court fee was required. The plaintiff was entitled to refund of the token money with interest and costs. en-us Mon, 22 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Feb 2020 14:19:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286105 Correspondence and receipt did not create a concluded lease because the material terms remained subject to finalisation of the lease deed. The Rs. 1 lakh payment was therefore token money, not advance rent, and could not be retained by the defendant. The defendant's unclear disclosure of its capacity to lease amounted to misrepresentation, although the absence of an occupancy certificate did not by itself invalidate an agreement to lease. The counter-claim for damages and interest failed for want of proof of recoverable loss, and additional court fee was required. The plaintiff was entitled to refund of the token money with interest and costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 22 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286105