Exclusive ownership can often be a determinant of a lease, although it is not a paint test to identify a lease. In some scenarios, exclusive ownership could be transferred without the transfer indicating a lease agreement. For example, where a rental agreement for a dwelling includes an exclusive ownership clause, if the alleged lessor itself is not entitled to grant the rental agreement, a transfer it has made cannot be a rental agreement and is considered to be a mere transfer of the right to use the property.2 The rights granted by the licensor to the licensee are contractual in nature. and do not grant any discount or share of the property. In addition, nothing in the Indian Easements Act of 1882 or the ICA precludes these provisions from being read together. It can therefore be concluded with certainty that the doctrine of frustration could apply to leave and licence agreements. If the nature of the rights granted in a licence is contractual, the provisions of the ICA would be implicitly applicable and, more broadly, Section 56 of the ICA would also apply. Considering this in the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic, it can be considered that license agreements that do not provide for contractual clauses similar to force majeure clauses, or where such clauses do not allow the contract to be terminated due to an unforeseeable event, may trust the defense of frustration. Like the mall license agreement in Figure C above, if you can see that the lockdowns and the resulting restrictions are maintained for an indefinite future and it completely thwarts the purpose for which the license agreement was concluded – for the creation of a shop for the sale of certain goods – one can get used with the claim to terminate the contract.