1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.682 OF 2009 M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ...Applicant. v. Ravindra A. Patil ...Respondent. Mr.S.R.Page, adv. for the Applicant. CORAM : J.H.Bhatia, J. DATE : 6TH October, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. Respondent is original plaintiff. Originally Burma Shell Refineries Ltd. had taken suit property on lease for a period of ten years from father of the plaintiff on 28th March, 1956 for a period of ten years with an option to Burma Shell Refineries Ltd. to hold the lease for a further period of ten years. That was also accepted. Meanwhile, Burma Shell Refineries Ltd. was nationalised and the Government had taken over the said company. Present applicant was constituted as Government Company under the Burma Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings In India) Act, 1976. Section 5(2) of the said Act provided that on the expiry of the term of any lease or tenancy, such lease or tenancy shall, if so desired by the Central Government, be renewed on the same terms and conditions on 2 which the lease or tenancy was held by Burma Shell immediately before the appointed date. After expiry of extended period of the lease in 1976, the Government and the defendant, being a Government Company, got the further extention of ten years as per Section 5(2). That period also expired. Thereafter, last lease deed was executed between the parties on 3rd July, 1997 effective from 1st September, 1994. This was to expire on 28th February, 2001. Before expiry of that period, plaintiff served a notice on the defendant. That after expiry of the lease period, they will have to vacate the premises. Even though the defendant had also expressed desire to continue the lease, that was not accepted by the plaintiff after expiry of the lease period. The plaintiff filed suit for eviction and possession. Admittedly, the defendant being a Government Company and also having paid-up capital of more than Rs.1 crore is not entitled to protection of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. In view of these circumstances, the trial Court passed the decree in favour of the plaintiff for eviction and possession in T.E. & R. Suit No.97/112 of 2001. That decree was challenged by the defendant in Appeal No.218 of 2005. That appeal also came to be dismissed by the judgment dated 28th April, 2009. That order is challenged in the present revision application by the 3 defendants. 2 In view of the facts and the legal position, I do not find any substance in the present revision application. Therefore, the revision application stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA, J.)