CAC. 66-11 & CRA. 71-11, 3217-11 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION No. 66 OF 2011 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (St.) No. 3217 OF 2011 Sainik Automobiles ...Applicant Vs. Videocon Properties Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents AND CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 71 OF 2011 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ... Applicant Vs. Videocon Properties Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondents WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (St.) No. 3217 OF 2011 Sainik Automobiles ...Applicant Vs. Videocon Properties Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents *** Mr. S. R. Page, for the Applicant. Mr. Naveen Joshi, for the Applicant in CAC No. 66/2011 & CRA (St.) No. 3217/2011. Mr. D. Madon, Sr. counsel, Ms. Neeta Rajde i/b DSK Associates, for Respondent No.1 in both the CRAs. *** CAC. 66-11 & CRA. 71-11, 3217-11 - 2 - CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : APRIL 27, 2011 P.C. 1. By consent of parties, both the Civil Revision Applications are taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission, since by consent of parties the delay caused in filing Civil Revision Application (St.) No. 3217 of 2011 is condoned, and Civil Application No. 66 of 2011 is accordingly allowed & disposed of. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and respondent No.1 in both the revisions. Civil Revision Application (St.) No. 3217 of 2011 is filed by the original dealer, who was defendant No.2 in the Suit and respondent No.2 in Civil Revision Application No. 71 of 2011. The applicant is challenging the judgment & order passed by the trial Court in a suit filed by respondent under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act. By the said judgment & order the said suit was decreed in favour of the respondent. Against this order, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court. The appeal was also dismissed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court was confirmed. The applicant admittedly, is a Company, whose authorized share-capital is above Rs. one Crore, and CAC. 66-11 & CRA. 71-11, 3217-11 - 3 - therefore, outside the purview of the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 in view of Section 3(1)(b) . In the present case, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of provisions of Section 5 and 7 of the Burma Shell (Acquisition of Undertaking in India) Act, 1976, the applicant has unilateral right of renewing the lease agreement. It is also submitted that in view of the statutory provisions under the said Act, the lease agreements could not have been terminated by the respondent herein. It is also submitted that the plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement in this Court which is still pending and during pendency of the said suit, therefore, lease agreements could not have been terminated. So far as other grounds which are found in the revision applications are concerned, they are not pressed. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that this Court in the case of – Trade Centre Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India [AIR 1985 Bombay 4], has interpreted the Section 7 of the said Act and observed that the said section only permitted the lessee to exercise the option of renewal only once. It is then submitted that the applicant had already exercised the option, to get the lease period extended for period of 20 years, which came to an end on 30th April, CAC. 66-11 & CRA. 71-11, 3217-11 - 4 - 1998. It is further submitted that it is not permissible for the applicant to seek further extension of the said period. It is further submitted that both the Courts below have given concurrent finding of fact. There is no dispute regarding the service of notice of termination of lease to the respondent herein. 4. It is an admitted position that the applicant Company has authorized capital of more than Rs. one Crore and the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 will not apply to said Company. The protection, therefore, which is given to the lessee under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act is not available to the applicant. The lessor, therefore, has right to terminate tenancy on expiry of lease and seek possession of the property. Though there is a provision under the Burma Shell (Acquisition of Undertaking of India) Act, 1976 which gives a right to the lessee to exercise the option of renewal unilaterally, in view of the judgment of our Court in the case of Trade Centre Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the said option can be exercised only once . This Court has held that the logic behind incorporating the said provision was to give breathing time to the lessee to organise its affairs and shift to the new premises. It is an admitted position that initially the period of lease expired in 1978 and the option to get extend the lease for CAC. 66-11 & CRA. 71-11, 3217-11 - 5 - a period of 20 years was exercised by the applicant in 1978. Even the said extended period of lease has expired in 1998 and therefore, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant cannot be accepted. 5. So far as the suit for specific performance is concerned, the cause of action for filing the said suit is entirely different from the right of lessor to terminate the lease agreement and therefore, second submission cannot be accepted. There is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below. While exercising the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, this Court is not expected to substitute its own view on the finding of the facts recorded by the Courts below. Hence, both the Civil Revision Application are dismissed. 6. The stay granted by the trial Court to the impugned judgment & decree is extended for further period of four weeks from today. [ V. M. KANADE J.]