* 1 * N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONjjjjj SECOND APPEAL NO.278 OF 2009 W I T H CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 643 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 278 OF 2009 M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation .... Appellant (Ori. Defendant) Vs. 1. Shri Narayan Hiraman Shindore 2. Sau.Hema Feroze Masani .... Respondents (Ori.Plaintiffs) =========== Mr.S.R. Page, Advocate for appellant. Mr.Mohan Pungalia, Advocate for respondents. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 15th July, 2009 P.C. 1. This Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 27th April 2007 passed by the Principal District Judge,Nasik in Civil Appeal No.179 of 2005 confirming the decision of the trial Court dated 16th August 2005 in Regular Civil Suit No.357 of 2002. The appellant is the original defendant and the respondents, the original plaintiffs. 2. Respondents are heirs and legal representatives of one Hiraman Shindore who was the owner of the land at survey No.547/4. By the lease deed dated 27th August 1952 Hiraman had given on lease land * 2 * admeasuring 10,000 square feet, out of survey no.547/4 to Burmah Shell, predecessor company of the appellant. The period of lease under the agreement was of 10 years. On its expiry, fresh lease deed was executed for the further period of 10 years. The said lease came to end by efflux of time on 26th August 1972. Thereafter there was no document executed extending the period of lease. However, the predecessor of the appellant, Burmah Shell Company, continued to occupy the suit land. In the year 1976, the Central Government passed an enactment by name Burmah Shell (Acquisition of its undertakings in India) Act,1976. Under the provisions of the said Act, the Central Government took over certain rights and liabilities of Burman Shell Company and transferred the same to the appellant. 3. Respondent No.1 Narayan Hiraman Shindore instituted a suit being Regular Civil Suit No.813 of 1982 under the provisions of Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rent Controls Act, 1947 for recovery of possession under Section 13(1) of the said Act. Later the Bombay Rent Act came to be repealed by Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Resultantly Narayan withdrew the suit for eviction on 10th December 2001 with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Since the relationship between the parties now, was governed by the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, notice dated 14th January 2002 was served upon the appellant terminating tenancy by the end of April 2002. Thereafter the suit herein was filed for recovery of possession. In this suit, respondent No.2 was * 3 * joined as co-plaintiff on the ground that she had become entitled to the property by virtue of will dated 22nd March 1989. 4. The evidence lead before the trial court consisted of respondent no.1 (P.W.No.1) and one Sanjeet Kumar Pandey-Senior Sales and Engineering Officer (D.W.No.1). The trial court on consideration of the evidence before it held that the termination of lease by the respondents by notice dated 14th January, 2004 was legal and valid. The appellants were in arrears of rent from 1st September, 2001 to 30th April, 2002 amounting to Rs.750/- and that the respondents were entitled to possession of the suit premises. As regards non-joinder of the necessary parties and jurisdiction of the court to entertain and try the suit, it answered the findings in favour of the respondents. With these findings, it decreed the suit directing the appellant to hand over vacant possession of the suit land to the respondents and pay arrears of rent of Rs.750/-. It further directed the appellant to pay damages of Rs.75/- per month as rent to the respondents from the date of the institution of the suit till handing over of the possession. 5. The appellant carried the judgment and decree in appeal to the district court. It disputed the right of respondent no.2 to the suit property and contended that the suit is bad for joining her as a party. It also contended that the suit is bad for non-joinder of Hiranand. It was next contended before the appeal court that the suit is bad for not having proper description of the suit property. It lastly contended that the lease held by the appellants had been * 4 * renewed by virtue off the provisions of Section 5 of Burmah Shell (Acquisition and Undertakings in India)Act, 1976. The appellate court held that respondent no.2 has no right to the suit property, however, maintainability of the suit was not affected on any of the grounds alleged. Even as regards description of the suit property in the plaint, the appellate court accepted the contention of the respondents. As regards the claim based on Section 5 of Burmah Shell (Acquisition of its undertakings in India) Act, 1976, the appeal court rejected the claim. 6. In the present Second Appeal, the only contention raised on behalf of the appellants is the applicability of Section 5 of Burmah Shell (Acquisition of its undertakings in India)Act, 1976. It was contended before the appellate court that after expiry of the lease, no formalities such as execution of lease and registration of the lease was required in terms of Section 107 of the Transfer Property Act in view of Section 5(2) of the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of its undertakings in India), Act, 1976. It was submitted that the lease stood automatically renewed in view of the provisions under the Act. The respondents on the other hand, contended that Section 5 is applicable only to the leases that were subsisting as on the date of Burmah Shell (Acquisition of its undertakings in India)Act coming into force. The said Section 5 merely continues the existing lease. The Act came into force in the year 1976 whereas the lease in favour of the appellants after afflux of time came to an end on 21st August, 1972. Since the lease had already come to an end, there was no * 5 * question of continuation of the same. The appellate court found that even if for the sake of argument, it is accepted by taking recourse to Section 5 of the said Act that lease has been renewed, it was specifically terminated by notice dated 14th January, 2003. There was no challenge to the said notice at any time. Therefore, the suit as filed was not affected by the provision of Section 5 of the said Act. The above reasoning of the appellate court is sound and cannot be disturbed. It is also patent from the record that the date on which the Act came into force, the lease in favour of the appellants was not subsisting. 7. In the circumstances, there is no disputed question of law falling for consideration of this court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed in limine. With the dismissal of the Appeal, Civil Application No. 643 of 2009 does not survive. The same is accordingly disposed off. 8. Mr.Page applies for stay of the operation of the impugned order. Mr.Pungalia states that the respondent shall not execute the decree for a period of 8 weeks from today to enable the appellant to approach the Apex Court, if it so desires. Mr.Page, then submits that in the event the appellant decides not to approach the Supreme Court and requires time to vacate the suit premises, liberty may be granted to the appellant to make such an application to this court. Liberty is granted. [(Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota,J)