1.sa342.21.170922 final.odt

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 : 06^th SEPTEMBER, 2022

JUDGMENT :

1.

Heard learned Senior Advocate Shri Atul Damle assisted by learned

Seema

1/18

SEEMA

KSHITIJ

YELKAR

Digitally signed

by SEEMA

KSHITIJ

YELKAR

Date:

2022.09.20

15:22:10 +0530

1.sa342.21.170922 final.odt

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.

Seema

2/18

1.sa342.21.170922 final.odt

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:-

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.

Seema

3/18

1.sa342.21.170922 final.odt

01/07/1982

The lease was renewed for a further period of 20

years.

8.

The pe