Back
ARIJIT PASAYAT, ALTAMAS KABIR
Depot Superintendent H. P. Corpn. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
Kolhapur Agri. Market Commtt. Kolhapur – Respondent
What is the condition for renewal of a lease under Section 7(3) of the Caltex (Acquisition of shares of Caltex) Oil Refining (I) Ltd. and of undertaking in India of Caltex (I) Ltd. Act, 1977? What are the rights of a lessee seeking renewal of a lease under Section 7(3) of the Caltex (Acquisition of shares of Caltex) Oil Refining (I) Ltd. and of undertaking in India of Caltex (I) Ltd. Act, 1977? How is the renewal of a lease governed by Section 7(3) of the Caltex (Acquisition of shares of Caltex) Oil Refining (I) Ltd. and of undertaking in India of Caltex (I) Ltd. Act, 1977?
Key Points: - Renewal under Section 7(3) of the Act is not automatic and requires the desire of the Central Government (!) . - There was no material on record to show any desire by the Central Government for renewal of the lease (!) . - The plea of entitlement to renewal is not acceptable as there was no reply to the notice of termination and no reference to the right of renewal in the written statement (!) . - If a lease were to be renewed under Section 7(3), the extension could have been granted for a period of 20 years from the year 1979 (!) . - The appellants are not entitled to the protection of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (!) . - The appeal was dismissed as it was without merit (!) . - The lease was executed on 28.12.1959 for a period of 20 years with an option of renewal for a further period of ten years, expiring in December 1989 (!) . - The appellant purportedly exercised the right of renewal for 30 years in terms of Section 7 read with Section 9 of the Acquisition Act (!) . - The respondent filed a civil suit for possession of the suit land and mesne profit (!) . - The Civil Judge decreed the suit, and the appeal before the District Judge and the second appeal before the High Court were dismissed (!) (!) . - The High Court held that there is no automatic renewal and renewal is only possible if desired by the Central Government (!) .
JUDGMENT
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. —
1.Leave granted.
2.Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dismissing the Second appeal filed by the appellant. While issuing notice on 11.4.2005 it was indicated that the appellant has to indicate whether he is willing to accept the suggestions given by the High Court about vacating the premises by 2009.
3.Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
Appellant is running a retail outlet Petrol Pump in the suit premises in Kolhapur for which a lease was executed on 28.12.1959 between the predecessor in interest of the appellant and the respondent for a period of 20 years with an option of renewal for a further period of ten years. The period expired in December, 1989. On 18.3.1989 i.e. prior to the expiry of the lease period, the appellant purportedly exercised the right of renewal of the lease deed for a period of 30 years in terms of Section 7 read with Section 9 of the Caltex (Acquisition of shares of Caltex) Oil Refining (I) Ltd. and of undertaking in India of Caltex (I) Ltd. Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as “the Acquisition Act”).
According to the appellant, the respondent by its con
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
