* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1876 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4933 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1876 OF 2008 The Chairman, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ....Appellant vs. Lilabai @ Laxmibai Sitaram Doiphode & anr. .....Respondents ======== Mr.S.R.Page,Advocate for Appellant. Mr.A.V.Anturkar, Senior Counsel with Mr.Amol Gatne i/by.Mr.S.B.Deshmukh,Advocate for respondent. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Dated : 14th July, 2009. PC :- 1. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the dispute, the record and proceedings are dispensed with. By consent of the parties, the First Appeal is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. 2. One Sitaram Doiphode had by the lease deed dated 31st December, 1964 granted lease of the suit land to then Burmah Shell Company (later incorporated as Bharat Petroleum Corporation, the appellant) * 2 * for a period of ten years. The lease deed provided for one extension of equal term at the option of the company. Accordingly, the company had opted for extension and the period of lease was extended upto 1st September, 1984. Thereafter, however Sitaram did not desire to extend the lease any further. Hence, by the notice dated 10th August 1984 he called upon the company to vacate the suit land. The officers of the company in their attempt to persuade Sitaram to continue the lease, entered into extensive correspondence with him and remained in possession till filing of eviction suit against them on 26th July 2004. Sitaram died on 10th September, 1998. Thereafter, the respondents by their letter dated 21st February, 2002 again called upon the company to vacate the land in view of expiry of the period of lease. 3. The appellant in his written statement in the eviction suit took up only two contentions, firstly, that it is a protected tenant under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and secondly that the subsequent notice for eviction dated 21st February, 2002 had the effect of cancelling the earlier notice dated 10th August, 1984. The trial court considered both the contentions against the backdrop of the evidence led by the parties and decreed the suit for possession. The evidence led before the court was only on behalf of the respondent. The appellant’s company did not lead any evidence. 4. During the course of his submission, Mr.Page the learned counsel for the appellant has rightly and fairly conceded that the appellant cannot claim protection under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. * 3 * Therefore, the only contention that falls for consideration of this court is whether the subsequent notice dated 21st February, 2002 had the effect of cancelling the earlier notice dated 10th August, 1984. The trial court has rightly observed that there is no question of termination of the previous notice by a subsequent notice and it would at the highest amount to waiver of the previous notice. In these circumstances, there is no dispute either based on facts or law arising for consideration of this court in the present appeal. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed in limine. 5. Mr.Anturkar states that the respondent shall not execute the decree for a period of six weeks from today to enable the appellant to approach the apex court if he so desires. Mr.Page submits that in the event the appellants decide not to approach the Supreme Court but require time to vacate the suit premises, liberty may be granted to the appellant to file such an application. Liberty is granted. 6. With the dismissal of the appeal, Civil Application No.4933 of 2008 filed for stay does not survive. The same is accordingly disposed off. (Smt.R.P. SondurBaldota,J.)