1 cra343-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.343 OF 2010 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Applicant Vs Dr.Iqbal Sulemanji Mohammedally and ors. ..Respondents -- Mr.S.R.Page, for applicant. Mrs.Snehal Modi, for respondent nos.1 to 3. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 22 nd NOVEMBER, 2010 P.C: Heard learned counsel for the revision applicant. 2] The revision applicant Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. is the original defendant. It is not in dispute that the applicant is not protected by the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The suit was filed by the respondents plaintiffs (landlords) after effecting service of notice of termination of tenancy. The notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Properties Act, 1882 was issued on 1 st July, 2004. It was admittedly served to the applicant on 5 th July, 2004. As the applicant did not vacate, a suit for possession was filed under Section 41 of the 2 cra343-10.sxw Presidency Small Causes Courts, Act, 1882 in the Small Causes Court. The trial court decreed the suit and, in appeal preferred by the applicant, the decree has been confirmed. 3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the courts below have not considered the important aspect that from the year 2004 the lease automatically stood renewed by virtue of Section 5 read with Section 7 of the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of its undertakings in India) Act, 1976. He submitted that the suit was, therefore, premature. His second submission is that in view of the custom prevailing in the old Bombay State, the suit could not be filed without waiting for expiry of one month. He submitted that the decree for possession may be quashed and set aside. 4] I have carefully considered the submissions. From perusal of the judgment of the appellate Court, it is apparent that the first contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant was not urged before the appellate court. In paragraph 8 of the judgment of the appellate Court, the submissions canvassed by the advocate for applicant in appeal, have been noted. The first submission before this Court does not find place in paragraph 8 of the judgment. It is not the case made out that the submission was canvassed, but it is not considered. Therefore, the applicant cannot be allowed to raise the said contention for the first time in Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 5] Before dealing with the second contention, the findings of fact 3 cra343-10.sxw recorded in paragraph 12 of the judgment of the appellate court will have to be considered. The relevant part of the said findings reads thus :- “12. It is not disputed on record that the plaintiffs predecessors were the owners of the suit plot admeasuring 606 7/9 sq.yds. situate at the Junction of J.J.Hospital and Victoria Garden Road. Mumbai bearing cadestral survey No.1330 of Byculla Division, Mumbai. There is also no dispute on the p on the point that the plaintiff No.3 predecessor i.e.his father bad leased the suit property to Burmah Shell Oil Storage Company by registered deed of lease dated 31.3.1955 for a period of 25 years having renewal clause of further 25 years. Burmah Shell later on become Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and lease period was continued. It is a fact on record that after 25 years from the lease deed dated 31.3.1955 no further registered deed of lease is effected between the parties, but defendant enjoyed possession of the suit premises as tenant for further 25 years from 31.5.1979. After completion of that 25 years the plaintiffs have issued the letter defendant on 1.6.2004 and asked defendant to vacate the premises. 6] As far as second contention is concerned, a findings of fact has been recorded in paragraph 17 of the judgment of the Appellate Court that the notice was served to the applicant on 5 th July, 2004 and the suit was filed on 6 th August, 2004. Hence, no case is made out for interference in the concurrent decrees passed by both the Courts below. 7] Civil Revision Application is rejected. 8] On the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant, it is 4 cra343-10.sxw directed that the decree for possession shall not be executed for a period of twelve weeks from today. [A.S.OKA, J]