Back
2020 Supreme(Raj) 552
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Arun Bhansali, J.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Currimbhoy Road Ballard Estate, Mumbai - Appellant
Versus
Mangilal - Respondent
Civil Second Appeal No. 62 of 2020
Decided On : 19-08-2020
Vinay Kothari, Advocate, Pradeep Singh Khichi, Advocate, R.K. Thanvi, Advocate, Narendra Thanvi, Advocate, Mahendra Thanvi, Advocate
The main legal point established in this judgment is that the Rent Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 is applicable to the case, and the defendant is not entitled to renewal of the lease under the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1976. The court also held that the suit was not barred by limitation.
Headnote:
Rent Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - The court found that the Act was applicable to the case. The court analyzed the proviso to Section 2(2) of the Act, which provides exemptions for certain premises, and held that the Act applied to the suit premises as they did not fall within the exemptions. The court also considered the provisions of Section 13(3), (4), and (5) of the Act, which deal with determination of provisional rent, its deposit during the pendency of the suit, and consequences of non-deposit. The court held that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 were not applicable to the case.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction, recovery of arrears, and mesne profit against the defendant. The suit premises were let out by the plaintiff's grandfather to the defendant corporation. The lease expired, and the defendant failed to pay rent. The plaintiff sought eviction on the grounds of default in payment of rent, material alteration, and bonafide requirement of the premises. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court upheld the decision. The defendant appealed to the second appellate court, raising various grounds including non-applicability of the Rent Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, entitlement to renewal of the lease, and limitation. The court found that the Act was applicable, the defendant was not entitled to renewal, and the suit was not barred by limitation. The court dismissed the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the provisions of the Rent Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1976, the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The court also considered the issue of partial eviction and the applicability of Order II Rule 2 CPC. The court found that the Act, 1950 was applicable, the defendant was not entitled to renewal of the lease, and the suit was not barred by limitation. The court upheld the findings of the lower courts on the grounds of default in payment of rent and material alteration. The court dismissed the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Rent Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 was applicable to the case. The court also held that the defendant was not entitled to renewal of the lease under the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1976. The court further held that the suit was not barred by limitation. The court upheld the findings of the lower courts on the grounds of default in payment of rent and material alteration. The court dismissed the appeal.
Result: The court dismissed the appeal as it found no substance in the grounds raised by the appellant. The judgments of the lower courts were upheld.
JUDGMENT
Arun Bhansali, J. - This second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11/2/2013 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Phalodi and judgment & decree dated 21/9/2019 passed by Addl. District Judge, Phalodi District, Jodhpur, whereby, the suit filed by the respondent no.1 plaintiff has been decreed and first appeal filed by the appellant has been rejected.
2. The respondent no.1 filed a suit for eviction, recovery of arrears and mesne profit qua the premises situated opposite Railway Station, Phalodi on 27/4/1998 with the averments that the property in question belonging to the plaintiff and defendant nos. 3 to 9 originally belonged to the plaintiff's grand father Aidan Thanvi, which has been let out to various tenants. Aidan Thanvi executed a Will dated 21/10/1974 in favour of Tej Karan Thanvi, father of the plaintiff; Aidan Thanvi died on 30/3/1977 and Tej Karan died on 20/9/1986 and, therefore, the plaintiff and defendant nos. 3 to 9 being legal representatives and heirs of deceased Tej Karan are owners of the suit premises. The suit premises were let out by Aidan Thanvi vide lease deed dated 1/7/1968 for a period of 15 years to Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company of India Limited at Rs. 135/- p.m. as lease rent. The area of the leased premises is 10,000 sq. ft. The lessee was first converted into Burmah Shell Refinery Limited and ultimately as Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. It was alleged that the period of lease expired on 30/6/1983 and the defendant Corporation is in possession as tenant by sufferance. Allegations were made pertaining to material alterations having been affected at the suit premises and, therefore, by notice dated 16/12/1997 the tenancy was terminated w.e.f. 31/1/1998 and the Corporation was required to pay the outstanding lease rent and handover the vacant possession of the premises. The respondents no. 3 to 9 were impleaded being necessary parties, however, no relief was being sought against them. The suit was filed on the grounds of default in payment of rent, reasonable and bonafide requirement of the premises and material alteration without consent.
3. The appellant-defendant filed written statement disputing the fact of Will dated 21/10/1974 executed by Aidan Thanvi; ownership of plaintiff and defendants no. 3 to 9 of the suit premises after the death of Tej Karan. It was indicated that after the death of Tej Karan, for a period of 20 years none claimed himself to be the legal representative of Aidan and did not seek lease rent. The defendant was ready and willing to pay the lease rent and defendant no.2 is the licensee of defendant no.1. It was submitted that the claim of rent was barred by limitation and the defendant was prepared to deposit the due rent within limitation. The provisions of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 ('the Act, 1950') are not applicable and the suit was liable to be dismissed.
4. The trial court framed 13 issues on the pleadings of the parties. On behalf of the plaintiff four witnesses were examined and six documents were exhibited. On behalf of the defendants three witnesses were examined.
5. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that as the landlord tenant relationship between Aidan Thanvi and Corporation is admitted, in view of the Will executed by Aidan Thanvi in favour of Tej Karan Thanvi, plaintiff and defendants no.3 to 9 being legal representatives of Tej Karan Thanvi, they are landlord of the premises and defendant no.1 Corporation is tenant, the lessor lessee relationship between the parties has come to an end at the end of 15 years inasmuch as even under the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1976 ('the Act, 1976'), no proposal for renewal / extension of the lease deed was sent. It was found that the Corporation has not paid rent since 1977 and, therefore, it has defaulted in payment of rent an
