99-Year Registered Lease Cannot Be Unilaterally Cancelled: Supreme Court Holds Document Was a Lease, Not a Licence

Case Name: The General Secretary, Vivekananda Kendra v. Pradeep Kumar Agarwalla & Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 199 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 9558 of 2023)
Date of Judgment/Order: 26 February 2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.V.N. Bhatti

Held: The Supreme Court held that unilateral cancellation of a 99-year registered lease is invalid where the document, on its plain reading, clearly creates a lease and not a licence, and that the intention of the parties must be gathered from the text and context of the instrument itself; since the document used clear expressions of demise, stipulated a fixed term of 99 years with annual rent, conferred rights of construction and alteration, and indicated transfer of interest in immovable property, it satisfied the ingredients of a lease under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, and the lessor could not unilaterally revoke it in the absence of statutory grounds under Section 111.

Summary: The dispute arose from a 99-year registered instrument dated 23 March 1998 executed by Late Anima Bose in favour of Vivekananda Kendra in respect of land at Baripada, Odisha, at an annual rent of Rs. 1,000, following which the Kendra established a centre on the property; the lessor subsequently executed a deed of cancellation in 2003 and later, through a power of attorney holder, sold the property in 2006 to third parties, leading the Kendra to file a suit seeking declaration of leasehold rights, recovery of possession, and injunction; the Trial Court decreed the suit and the First Appellate Court affirmed, holding that unilateral cancellation of a registered lease was illegal and that subsequent purchasers were bound by lis pendens, but the High Court in second appeal reversed these findings on the ground that the document was in substance a licence and not a lease; the Supreme Court examined the distinction between lease and licence by referring to established precedents including Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. R.N. Kapoor, reiterated that substance prevails over form and that intention must be derived primarily from the plain language of the instrument, cautioned against excessive reliance on ex-post facto conduct, and concluded that the instrument unmistakably created a leasehold interest for 99 years and not a mere permissive right.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the Civil Appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court of Orissa in RSA No. 123 of 2021, restored the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court declaring the 99-year lease valid and the unilateral cancellation illegal, clarified that purchasers from the lessor would be entitled only to such rights as remained with the lessor subject to the lease, made no order as to costs, and disposed of all pending applications.