Page 1

JUDGMENT

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2770 OF 2013

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.355 OF 2010)

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

… Appellant

Versus

Rama Chandrashekhar Vaidya & Another

…Respondents

WITH

SLP (CIVIL) NO.15 OF 2010

J U D G M E N T

Aftab Alam J.

SLP(C) No.355 of 2010

1.

Leave granted.

2.

The appellant-Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, is a Public Sector

Oil Company. In appeal against a decree of eviction, it claims the right to

another innings under section 5(2) of the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of

Undertakings in India) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

Page 2

JUDGMENT

3.

The facts which provide the context for judging the appellant’s claim are

brief and simple.

4.

The predecessor of the appellant, namely, Burmah Shell Oil Storage and

Distributing Company of India Limited came in occupation of a piece of land

situated at Kurla, Taluka-South Salsette, District Bombay suburban, now

included in Greater Bombay, admeasuring an area of 19,188 square feet,

bearing Hissa No.1 (part) of Survey No.305 of Kurla (the suit premises) on the

basis of a registered deed of lease dated September 22, 1955. The lease was for

a period of 25 years beginning from March 1, 1955 and further gave to the

lessee [vide. Clause 3 (d)] the unilateral right of renewal for an additional period

of twenty five years by giving a notice in writing two months prior to the

expiration of its term.

5.

On January 24, 1976, the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in

India) Act, 1976 came into force and by virtue of section 3 of the Act, the right,

title and interest of Burmah Shell in relation to its undertakings in India stood

transferred to and vested in the Central Government. Later on, following a

notification issued by the Central Government under section 7(1) of the Act, the

right, title and interest and the liabilities of Burmah Shell in relation to any of its

undertaking in India that had vested in the Central Government were transferred

to and vested in the appellant Company.

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

6.

A few months before the term of the lease was to come to end, the

appellant, on October 17, 1979 gave a notice to the lessor invoking the renewal

clause in the lease deed¹ and asking for the renewal of the lease, at the same rent

and upon the same terms and conditions as were contained in the lease, for a

further period of 25 years with effect from March 1, 1980. In the notice it was

also stated that a fresh engrossment of lease was being drawn up for execution

and registration.

7.

At this stage, it needs to be noted that though the appellant gave to the

lessor the renewal notice and also continued to occupy the suit premises for the

next twenty five years, no fresh lease deed was actually executed between the

parties and registered in renewal of the previous lease. It also needs to be noted

here that the lessor sent a letter to the appellant on April 24, 1980 stating that

the monthly rent of the suit premises stood increased to Rs.500/- from March 1,

1980², but the appellant was remitting rent to the lessor at the old rate of

Rs.400/- only. The appellant was requested by the letter to pay the differential

amount for the past two months and to pay the future rent at the increased rate

of Rs.500/- per month.

8.

As the second twenty five year term was nearing expiry, another notice

for renewal of the lease was given on behalf of the appellant to the lessor on

1 Though the notice mentions clause 4(b) of the lease deed, it actually refers to clause 3(d) which is the renewal

clause. Clause 4(b) relates to the determination of the lease on account of the failure of the lessor to obtain a

licence or a renewal in respect of the pump outfit or outfits standing upon the suit premises at the time of

execution of the deed or to be erected and maintained thereupon in future.

2 As per the stipul