1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 258 OF 2009 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 403 OF 2006 IN CIVIL SUIT NO. 627 OF 2003 Hindustan Petrolem Corporation Ltd. ... Petitioner (Org. Defendant) Vs. Lt. Col. (Retd.) Neelkanth Raghavendra Purandare and Anr. ... Respondents (Org.Plaintiffs) Mr. G.S.Godbole, i/b. Ms. Pallavi N. Dabholkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. V.S.Gokhale,Advocate, for the respondents 1 & 2. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 8th April, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The respondents are the original plaintiffs and landlords. They filed Regular Civil Suit No.627 of 2003 for eviction and possession of the suit premises. The suit was decreed. The appeal No.403 of 2006 filed by the defendant also came to be dismissed. Hence, the defendant has preferred the present Revision Application. 2 3. To state in brief, the original agreement of lease had taken place between the landlords and Caltex (India) Limited on 2.11.1966 for a period of 10 years with effect from 1.10.1965 till 30.9.1975. Under the agreement, the tenant/lessee had the right of renewal of the said lease agreement for further period of 10 years on the same terms and conditions on a written request to be made by the lessee to the lessor 3 months before expiry of the term. As per that term, the lessee had informed the landlords about intention to renew the lease agreement for further period of 10 years. Meanwhile, Caltex India Ltd. was nationalized by The Caltex (Acquisition of Shares of Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited and of the Undertakings in India of Caltex (India) Limited Act, 1977 (hereinafter for brevity "the Caltex Act"). After nationalization, the Government of India established and transferred all its rights, interest and liabilities in the said company to newly constituted Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. which is the defendant and revision applicant in the present matter. As the landlords had refused to execute fresh lease deed beyond September, 1975, the defendant filed Regular Civil Suit no.1201/1977 for specific performance of the contract as per the terms of the original agreement. That suit was decreed in June 1985. On 28.6.1985, the defendant issued fresh letter expressing its intention to renew the lease agreement for further 10 years upto 30.9.95. On 6.6.95, the defendant again issue a letter informing the landlords about their intention to renew the lease 3 agreement for further 10 years. However, no lease deed was executed nor there was any confirmation about renewal of the lease agreement beyond September 1995 by the landlords. On 6.6.2000, the landlords issued notice terminating the lease and in the year 2003, they filed suit for eviction under the Maharashtra Rent Act under which the protection of Rent Act was not available to the public sector undertakings and the companies having capital of more than Rs.1 crore. 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the defendant/revision applicant contended that as per the terms of clause 4(e) of the original agreement dated 2.11.1966 there is no limit on renewal from time to time and it is upto the lessee to exercise that option before expiry of the term of 10 years every time. However, on perusal of the said term, it appears that before the expiry of the term of lease i.e. 10 years created under that agreement, the lessee would have option to renew the agreement with further term of 10 years by giving a notice in writing 3 months prior to the expiry of the lease period. On perusal of this clause, it appears that the option was limited to renew for one time only. It is impossible to infer or hold that under this clause, the lessee would have perpetual right of renewal after every 10 years, particularly because as per this clause, the renewal was to be for further 10 years on the same terms and conditions and at the same rent of Rs.200/- per month. From this, it appears that the party had agreed that for further 10 years 4 beyond the first tenure of 10 years, the rent would be same i.e. Rs.200/- per month. It is impossible to believe that the landlords had agreed that the rent of rs. 200/- would continue to be so in perpetuity. Therefore, this contention cannot be accepted. 4. The learned Counsel further contended that as per the provisions of Section 7(3) of the Caltex Act, on expiry of the lease period as per desire of the Central Government, the tenancy or lease agreement could be renewed or continued on the same terms and condition on which the lease or tenancy or arrangement was originally granted or entered into. The learned Counsel for the revision applicant placed reliance upon paras 11 to 15 in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs.P. Kesavan & Anr. (2004) 9 SCC 772 in support of his contention that when there is a statutory renewal of the lease, it is not necessary that the same should be executed and registered as per the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act or the Registration Act. I fully agree with this contention. In fact, the provisions of sub-sec. (3) of Sec.7 are almost similar to the clause 4(e) in the agreement and therefore it may be said that on expiry of the period of 10 years, this right would be available to the Central Govt. and to the defendant in view of the transfer of the rights and interest of the Central Government to the defendant. However, in the present case, original first period 5 of 10 years of lease had expired on 30.9.75 and as per the terms of the original agreement that was extended by further 10 years as per the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.1201/1977. It means that on 23.4.1977, when the Caltex Act came into force, the second term of 10 years of lease was in force. That agreement was to continue upto 30.9.85. It can be said that by virtue of Sec.7 sub-sec. (3) of the Caltex Act, the Government would have the right of renewal beyond 1985. Therefore, statutorily this period could be extended upto 30.9.95 on the same terms and conditions, including the right of rent. However, sub-sec. (3) does not indicate that such right would be perpetual or that repeatedly the lease could be renewed every 10 years. Taking into consideration all this material, it is clear that beyond 30.9.95 there was no lease agreement between the parties. 5. The learned Counsel for the defendant-applicant contended that though the termination notice was issued on 6.6.2000, on 24.8.2000, the plaintiffs- landlords had signed a declaration wherein they had accepted that the defendant was the lessee and there was no dispute between the parties. In fact, that was a declaration to clarify the title of the declarants because talks were going on between the parties for outright sale of the property by the landlords in favour of the defendants. Somehow, that could not succeed and the defendants filed a separate suit for specific performance of contract for sale of the property. That 6 suit was dismissed. In fact, that declaration only states the history since 1956 as to how the property was leased out to Caltex India Ltd. and thereafter the lease continued in favour of the present defendants - Hindustan Petroleum. That declaration does not indicate that the plaintiffs had admitted that the tenancy was still continuing inspite of termination on 6.6.2000. That declaration has to be read in the light of the circumstances and the purpose for which it was prepared. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, I find no illegality or irregularity in the concurrent findings of the Courts below. In my considered opinion, both the courts below have correctly interpreted the terms of the contract between the parties and the said order needs no interference. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the Revision Application stands dismissed. 8. At this stage, on request of the learned Counsel for the defendant/revision applicant, the execution of the impugned decree is stayed for a period of four weeks from this day. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) 7