ash 1 cra-247.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 247 OF 2011 M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. .. Applicant. Vs Paramjit Singh Ghai & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri S.R. Page for the Applicant. Ms Pallavi Dabholkar for Respondents. -- CORAM : A.S. OKA, J DATED : 19TH DECEMBER, 2011 P.C. . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Applicant. The Revision Applicant M/s.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited is a Defendant in the suit filed by the Respondents. The suit for eviction was filed by the Respondents under the provisions of Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act, 1882. The suit proceeds on the footing that in view of Section 3(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”), the Applicant has no protection of the said Act. 2. The predecessors of the Respondent by an Indenture of Lease dated 3rd August, 1960 had granted a lease to Burmah Shell Oil ash 2 cra-247.11 Storage and Distribution Company of India Limited of the suit land for a period of 20 years commencing from 1st December, 1957 and expiring on 30th November, 1977. The said Company is the predecessor of the Applicant. On 24th January, 1976, by virtue of the provisions of Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act 1976, the right, title and interest of the aforesaid Company was vested in the Central Government. On the very day, another Notification was issued by the Central Government under Section 5 of the said Act of 1976 directing that the right, title and interest and liabilities of the said Company will vest in the Applicant. 3. It is stated in the Plaint that the lease expired by efflux of time on 30th November, 1977. An option of renewal provided in the lease for a further period of 20 years was exercised by the Applicant. The extended period expired on 30th November, 1997. After coming into force of the said Act of 1999, the Respondent issued a notice of termination of the tenancy on 14th August, 2004 to the Applicant. Thereafter, the present suit was filed. 4. The suit was contested by the Applicant by filing a Written Statement. Various contentions were raised in the Written Statement. One of the contentions raised in the Written Statement was that the predecessor of the Respondent was granted a lease of 40 years with a ash 3 cra-247.11 break after the period after 20 years and, therefore, even after 30th November, 1997, the Applicant was entitled to renewal of lease for a further period of 20 years. Reliance was placed on Sections 5 and 7 of the said Act of 1976 which, according to the Applicant, provided a statutory option to the Applicant for renewal of the lease for the period of 20 years. 5. After framing various issues, the Trial Court proceeded with the trial. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. As far as the applicability of the provisions of the said Act of 1999 is concerned, the Trial Court recorded an admitted position that the Applicant was not protected under the said Act of 1999. However, one of the findings recorded by the Trial Court is that the Applicant was entitled to further renewal for a period of 20 years upto the year 2017. In an Appeal preferred by the Respondents, the Appellate Court has interfered with the decree of Trial Court and has passed a decree for possession. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Applicant invited attention of the Court to the provisions of the said Act of 1976 and in particular Section 5(2) and 7(3) thereof. He submitted that the first renewal of a lease from 1977 was under the terms of the lease deed and under the terms of the aforesaid statute, a right of further renewal for a period of 20 years was created in favour of the Applicant. ash 4 cra-247.11 7. The Appellate Court rightly held that after coming into force of the said Act of 1976, one option of the renewal was already exercised by the Applicant and therefore, after having exercised one option of renewal, the Applicant is not entitled to seek second renewal. 8. The view taken by the Appellate Court is in conformity with the settled position of law. The Applicant has no protection of the said Act of 1999. There is not dispute regarding service of notice to quit and, therefore, the decree for possession must follow. I find no error in the impugned judgment and decree. The Revision Application is accordingly rejected. 9. On the prayer made by the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant, the decree for possession shall not be executed for a period of four months from today. ( A.S. OKA, J )