Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.M. MODAK, J.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Shri Bharat Krishnalal Thakkar & Ors. - Respondents
Second Appeal No. 342 of 2021 With Interim Application No. 3119 of 2021
Decided On : 06-09-2022
Transfer of Property Act - Eviction Suit - Sections 3, 5, 7, 11 - The court discussed the non-renewal of the lease deed and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in entertaining the suit for eviction. The judgment highlighted the provisions of the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of its Undertakings in India) Act 1976 and their impact on the lease renewal. The court also considered the applicability of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and the requirement of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff's suit for eviction was decreed by the trial Court based on the expiration of the lease deed. The Appellate Court confirmed the judgment. The Second Appeal was filed challenging the eviction order due to non-renewal of the lease.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the provisions of the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of its Undertakings in India) Act 1976 and the impact of lease renewal. It also discussed the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in entertaining the suit for eviction and the requirement of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Issues: The issues revolved around the non-renewal of the lease deed, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, and the requirement of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit for eviction based on the expiration of the lease deed. It also found that the notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was sufficient, despite not being specifically mentioned in the pleadings.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the execution of the judgment was stayed for six weeks.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Shri Atul Damle assisted by learned Advocate Shri S.R. Page for the Appellants/Defendants and learned Advocate Shri Dushyant Purekar assisted by learned Advocate Shri Rajat Dedhia for the Respondent/plaintiff.
2. The plaintiff’s suit for eviction was decreed by the trial Court. In an appeal filed by the Appellants hereinafter described as Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) the judgment of the trial Court was confirmed. That is how the present Second Appeal is filed.
3. Learned Senior Advocate Shri Damle extensively argued the matter. According to him the Plaintiff was not sure whether the suit will be governed as per the provisions of Transfer of Property Act or as per provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act. According to him, if the grounds pleaded in the plaint thereby seeking eviction are perused, the eviction is sought mainly on the following three grounds:-
(ii) Bonafide requirement of the landlord.
(iii) Unauthorized construction carried out by the BPCL.
4. It is true that all these three grounds were taken. It is also true that the trial Court has answered the issue of the bonafide requirement and unauthorized construction against the landlord. But the eviction was ordered on the ground that the tenure of the lease deed has expired on 01/07/2002 and thereafter, it was not extended.
5. The Appellate Court has framed five points. The appellate court has not framed points about bonafide requirement and unauthorized construction. Probably, it may be for the reason that the landlord has not challenged those findings. On perusal of the Appellate Court judgment also there is no discussion about correctness of the findings of the trial court on the those two issues.
6. The issue about lapsing of the duration of the lease deed on 01/07/2022 was answered in favour of the Plaintiff and findings of the trial Court are confirmed. So the scope of enquiry in this appeal is limited to that issue only.
7. Learned Senior Advocate Shri Damle invited my attention to the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of its Undertakings in India) Act 1976 and more specifically the provisions of Sections 3, 5, 7 and 11. Prior to going into those provisions, it will be material to see the chronology of the events as mentioned in the synopsis. We may find the following important dates and they are also not disputed by the landlord who became the owner of the property on 21/3/2002. They are as follows:-
| Date | Particulars |
| 17/07/1947 | Lease deed between Haji Juseb Saina and Burma Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India. The duration was for 15 years. The indenture of the lease is also filed in the compilation. |
| 17/03/1962 | There was renewal of lease for a further period of 20 years. |
| 01/07/1982 | The lease was renewed for a further period of 20 years. |
8. The period of last renewal for 20 years expired on 01/07/2002. There were two events. One is purchase of the property by the plaintiff from Mr. V.P. Jog and B. P. Jog. The second is expiry of the period of lease that is for 20 years on 01.07.2002.
9. The plaintiff issued a letter to the Defendant thereby informing that he has become a landlord. There are certain correspondence. It is referred by the trial Court in a judgment (Para No. 16). They are as follows:-
| Exhibits | Date | Particulars |
| Exh. 30 | 10/05/2022 | Letter written by Plaintiff to Defendant. |
| Exh. 31 | 30/07/2022 | A letter written by the defendant to the plaintiff thereby admitting ownership |
| Exh. 32 | 14/05/2002 | Letter written by BPCL to the plaintiff thereby demanding the ownership documents |
| Exh. 33 | 03/06/2002 | Documents sent by the plaintiff to the BPCL |
| Exh. 53 | 30/07/2002 | Notice sent by the plaintiff to the BPCL informing about the termination of lease by efflux of time. |
| Exh. 54 and 55 | – | A |
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
