The Plaintiffs instituted this Suit on 27th August, 1999 for following reliefs:(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the Indenture of Lease dated 6th May, 1949 in respect of the suit property, whereof the Plaintiffs are the lessees of the said property, has stood renewed with effect from 1st May, 1999 for a period of 50 years as provided in the said Indenture of Lease dated 6th May, 1949 and as modified/substituted subsequently by Agreement dated 31st August, 1955 and reiterated in the Deed of Conveyance dated 25th November, 1993;

(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order and decree the Defendants to specifically perform the contract for renewal of the Lease contained in the Indenture of Lease dated 6th May, 1949, the Agreement dated 31 st August, 1955 which have been approved, adopted and binding on the Defendants by virtue of Deed of Conveyance dated 25th November, 1993, and execute the necessary renewal and do all other acts and things necessary for that purpose;

(c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the terms and conditions of the Indenture of Lease dated 6th May, 1949 and the Agreement dated 31st August, 1955 are binding on the Defendants and they are bound to specifically perform the terms of the same including the renewal with effect from 1st May, 1999 for a period of 50 years.

2. The Defendants herein filed their written statement and in the written statement the Defendants have raised the point as regards the jurisdiction of this Court. On account of this, it was felt necessary to frame an issue of jurisdiction and accordingly, on 24th September, 2010, following issues were amed:(i) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present Suit?

(ii) What Order?

My answer to these issues are as under :-

Issue No.(i) - In the negative.

Issue No.(ii) - As per the final order.

3. Learned Counsels on both sides indicated to the Court that no oral evidence is required to be furnished and Court can decide the issues on the basis of the record. On account of this, it became necessary for the Court to hear arguments on both sides and the same was done.

4. For deciding the aforesaid issues, few facts are required to be stated. By a lease deed dated 6th May, 1949, N. R. Parekh and Others executed a lease for a period of 5 0 years in favour of Aruna Chemicals Colour and Industrial Products Co. Ltd. with effect from 1st May, 1949. Said Company went into liquidation. The liquidator was appointed in respect of the said Aruna Chemicals and its properties including property mentioned in para 3 of plaint i.e. the Suit property. The Liquidator by document dated 19th January, 1954 assigned the lease in favour ofShamjibhai for unexpired period. Said Shamjihbhai, by document dated 7th July, 1954 assigned the lease in favour of Bharat Pulverizing Mills Ltd. for the unexpired period. On account of change of name, the Suit came to be filed in the name of B.P.M. Industries Ltd. By document dated 31st August, 1955, N.R. Parekh & Others i.e. landlords executed an agreement with Bharat Pulverizing Mills Ltd. and modified the terms of the agreement. On 25th November 1993, executrix of Will of Mrs. N. R. Parekh and other owners executed a sale deed of the Suit property in favour of the Defendants.

5. In the circumstances stated aforesaid, the Plaintiffs were enjoying Suit property as lessee and the Defendants were the lessor.

6. The lease deed dated 6th May, 1949 was to come to an end on 30th April, 1999 by efflux of time. It has been the contention of the Plaintiffs that on account of the assignment of the lease in favour of the Plaintiffs for the unexpired period as mentioned and on the basis of document dated 31.8.1955 between the Plaintiffs and earlier owners, the Plaintiffs were entitled to renewal of lease for 50 years with effect from 1.5.1999. It is admitted by the Plaintiffs that by notice dated 23rd March, 1995, the Defendants lessor called upon the Plaintiffs to vacate the suit property