JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.:---Heard learned Advocates for the parties.

Perused the records. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith.

The petitioners challenge the order dated 26-6-2002 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai in Appeal No. 275 of 2001. The said appeal arose out of the order dated 28-2-2001 passed in Interim Notice No. 481 of 2000 in T.E. Suit No. 148-185 of 2000. By order dated 28-2-2001 the trial Judge had discharged the notice which was taken out by the respondent bank and by the impugned order the Appellate Bench set aside the said order of the trial Judge and directed the petitioners to pay to the respondents sum of Rs. 10/- per sq.ft. per month being damages for wrongful use and occupation of the suit land w.e.f. 1-4-2000 and further to continue to pay at that rate till the disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners had filed Civil Revision Application No. 1396/2002 wherein while issuing Rule in the matter and ordering expeditious hearing thereof, an interim order was passed granting stay of the execution of the impugned order subject to the petitioners depositing sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- in this Court within a period of four weeks and to continue to deposit Rs. 50,000/- per month from September 2002 onwards till disposal of the revision application. The said order was passed on 9-8-2002. Subsequently in view of law on the point of maintainability of the civil revision application consequent to amendment of section 115 of C.P.C. which has came into force w.e.f. 1-7-2002, the revision application in question was dismissed as not maintainable and thereupon the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

2. Few facts relevant for the decision are that by a registered deed of lease dated 7-5-1955 M/s. Burmah Shell Oil Storage Distributing Company of India Ltd., the predecessors in title of the petitioners were inducted in the suit premises for a period of 25 years w.e.f. 1-3-1965 on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 5500/- and subject to the terms and conditions specified in the lease deed. While the petitioners were in possession of the leased premises under the said lease deed, on or about 24-1-1976 by virtue of Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1976 hereinafter called as "the said Act", the rights, title and interests of the said M/s. Burmah Shell Oil Storage Distributing Company of India Ltd., were acquired by the Government of India in relation to the undertaking of the said company in India. Consequently, in terms of section 7 of the said Act, all the properties owned by the said Burmah Shell Ltd., as well as the properties held or possessed by the said company under any lease or under any right of tenancy were deemed to have been transferred in favour of the petitioner Central Government. These rights stood assigned in favour of Burmah Shell Refineries Ltd., a Government Company, by virtue of Notification dated 24-1-1976 issued by the Government under section 7 of the said Act. On 12-2-1976 the name of Burmah Shell Refineries was changed to Bharat Refineries Ltd., In any case, there is no dispute that the petitioners are the successor of the said company in relation to the lease hold rights in the suit premises and infact the rent of the suit premises was paid by the petitioners to the respondents from the year 1976 onwards. By notice dated 27-12-1999 the respondents/plaintiffs informed the petitioners that the lease in relation to the suit premises has been cancelled as well as that on account of breach of terms and conditions of lease, they are not entitled for protection either under Bombay Rent Act or under Maharashtra Rent Control Act and therefore, by further notice dated 27-5-2000 they were called upon to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondents/plaintiffs. The petitioners by reply dated 15-6-2000 denied all the contentions which were raised by the respondents/plaintiffs and conte

Click Here to Read the rest of this document