1 cra936.sxw ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.936 OF 2010 M/s.Bharat Petroleum Corporation ...Applicant vs. 1 Dawoodbhoy Ebrahim Nalwala and others ...Respondents Mr.S.R.Page for the applicant Mr.V.Y.Sanglikar for the respondent nos.1 to 6. CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : NOVEMBER 24,2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. The applicant is the defendant-tenant and the 1st to 6th respondents are the plaintiffs-landlords. A suit for eviction under section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act,1882 was filed by the plaintiffs against the applicant. Admittedly, the applicant is not protected by the Maharashtra Rent Control Act,1999 in view of section 3 (1) (b) thereof. The tenancy of the applicants was determined by issuing a notice under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act,1882 and thereafter, a suit was filed. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court and there is confirmation of the decree in the appeal preferred by the applicant. 2 The learned counsel for the applicant pointed that the lease dated 14th June 1960 was executed with effect from 1st September 1959 for a period of 20 years in favour of M/s. Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited. On 24th January 1976, Burmah Shell Acquisition of Undertakings in India Act, 1976 2 cra936.sxw (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) came into force by which the Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited was vested in the Central Government. On 28th July 1977, Central Government resolved that the right, title and interests of the said lessee will vests in Burmah Shell Refineries Limited. The name of the Burmah Shell Refineries Limited changed to the Bharat Refineries Limited and finally to the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (the applicant) on 28th July 1977. According to the applicant as per clause 4(b) of the Indenture of Lease, after expiry of period of 20 years, the same was renewed till 1999. It is the contention of the applicant that in view of section 5 read with section 7 of the said Act, in the year 1999, the lease stood renewed for further period of 20 years. It is the contention of the applicant that after the period of renewal as per clause 4(b) expired, the applicant is entitled to further extension by virtue of section 5 read with section 7 of the said Act. The learned counsel submitted that the lease shall be deemed to have extended for further period of 20 years from the year 1999. 3 I have considered the submissions. There is no dispute that the applicant is not protected under the Rent Act. There is no dispute about the service of termination of notice. The only dispute is whether the applicant was entitled to further extension of lease for a period of 20 years from 1999. After expiry of period of 20 years from 1959, fresh lease in terms of clause 4(b) was not executed. Therefore, the lease stood extended for a period of 20 years in view of the provisions of the said Act. After expiry of the said second period of 20 years, it is obvious that on the basis of section 5 read with section 7, the applicant 3 cra936.sxw cannot claim second renewal. 4 Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent decree. Civil revision application is rejected. JUDGE