2022:BHC-AS:21128 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 342 OF 2021 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3119 OF 2021

1. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., A Body Corporate having their office at Bharat Bhawan, 4 and 5, Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, P. B. No. 688, Mumbai 400 001.

2. Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., D99, T. T. Industrial Area, Vashi, Navi Mumbai ...Appellants Vs.

Shri Bharat Krishnalal Thakkar, Aged Major, Occ. Business, R/o Krishnalal Chhotalal and Co., Near R. G. Suchak Petrol Pump, Opp. Gnyaneshwar Mandir, Agra Road, Kalyan (West), District Thane ...Respondent *****

Shri Atul Damle, Senior Advocate, i/by Shri S. R. Page - Advocate for the Appellants.

Mr. Dushyant Purekar a/w Mr. Rajat Dedhia – Advocate for the Respondent *****

CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J.

DATE : 06th SEPTEMBER, 2022 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:-

(i) Non renewal of the lease deed.

(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 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:-

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