1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPICATION NO. 635 OF 2009 IN T.E. & R. SUIT NO. 80/97 OF 2002 M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ... Petitioner (Orig.deft.) Versus Mrs. Hardevi wd/o Pahlajsinigh Rajpal & Ors. Respondents (Org.Plaintiffs) Mr. Girish S.Godbole,Advocate, for the applicant. Mr.V.P.Sawant, a/w MA.Rochiramani,Advocate, for the respondent No.1.. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 28th April, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The respondents before this Court are the original plaintiffs and the revision applicant is the original defendant. 3. The admitted facts are that on 14.10.1969, the original landlord leased out the suit land to Esso Standard Eastern Incorporation (Esso) for running petrol 2 pump and service station. The lease deed was for a period of ten years and as per the terms of the agreement, the lease could be renewed for a further period of ten years at the instance of the lessee. Meanwhile, Esso was nationalized by Esso (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1974 and as per the powers under Section 7 of that Act, the Central Government vested the rights and interest of the Esso in the defendant – Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The landlord was the original lessee and Esso was the sub-lessee. On 26.9.2000, the plaintiffs issued notice terminating the tenancy. That notice was waived and thereafter on 11.6.2002, a fresh notice of termination was issued. As the defendant failed to vacate the premises, the plaintiffs filed Suit No.80/97 of 2002. That suit was decreed. Appeal against that decree also came to be dismissed. Hence, the revision. 4. Perusal of the lease deed reveals that as per clause 3 of the original lease deed, the sub-lessee had an option to renew the sub-lease for a further period of ten years at the same rent and on the same terms and conditions. Under Section 4 of the Esso Act, the rights and interest of the Esso in any property would stand vested in the Central Government and the same rights were vested in the defendant – Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. Under Section 5, where any property was held by Esso under any lease or tenancy, the Central Government on 3 and from the appointed day,shall be deemed to have become the lessee or tenant, as the case may be, in respect of such property. The lease or tenancy in relation to such property shall be deemed to have been transferred to and vested in the Central Government. Under sub-section (2) of Section 5, on expiry of the term of any lease or tenancy, such lease or tenancy could be, if so desired by the Central Government, renewed on the same terms and conditions on which the lease or tenancy was held by Esso immediately before the appointed day. Thus, as per the terms of the agreement, the lease period of 10 years from 14.10.1969, would come to an end on 13.10.1979. However, the lessee had the right of renewal for 10 years. As that right was exercised, it was renewed and extended till 13.10.1989. The learned Counsel for the revision applicant contended that there was a statutory renewal beyond the period of lease as per the agreement and for that purpose, he placed reliance on Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. P.Kesavan and another AIR 2004 SC 2206. Even if it is assumed that the power of the Central Government under Section 5(2) of the Esso Act was over and above the right of renewal given to the lessee,still that statutory renewal could be for further period of 10 years, which would also come to an end on 13.10.1999. After that there was neither any contractual nor statutory renewal. 5. Admittedly, the defendant being a Corporation or company having 4 share capital of more than Rs.1 crore, it has no protection of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 in view of the provisions of section 3(1)(b). There is no contention that the notice was not properly served. In view of this, the tenancy has been determined lawfully and the defendant had no right to continue in the same. The Courts below rightly came to conclusion and passed the decree for eviction. I find no illegality or irregularity in the same. Therefore, there is no substance in the present Revision Application. 5. In the result, the Revision Application stands dismissed. 6. In view of the request of the learned Counsel for the revision applicant, the impugned decree shall not be executed till 9.7.2010 subject to condition that the applicant shall not create third party interest and shall not induct any third party in the premises. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)