Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 2903 of 2007
PETITIONER:
Depot Superintendent H.P.Corpn. Ltd. & Anr
RESPONDENT:
Kolhapur Agri. Market Commtt. Kolhapur
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/06/2007
BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & ALTAMAS KABIR
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2903 OF 2007
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6841 of 2005)
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dismissing the
Second appeal filed by the appellant. While issuing notice on
11.4.2005 it was indicated that the appellant has to indicate
whether he is willing to accept the suggestions given by the
High Court about vacating the premises by 2009.
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
Appellant is running a retail outlet Petrol Pump in the
suit premises in Kolhapur for which a lease was executed on
28.12.1959 between the predecessor in interest of the
appellant and the respondent for a period of 20 years with an
option of renewal for a further period of ten years. The period
expired in December, 1989. On 18.3.1989 i.e. prior to the
expiry of the lease period, the appellant purportedly exercised
the right of renewal of the lease deed for a period of 30 years in
terms of Section 7 read with Section 9 of the Caltex
(Acquisition of shares of Caltex) Oil Refining (I) Ltd. and of
undertaking in India of Caltex (I) Ltd. Act, 1977 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Acquisition Act").
According to the appellant, the respondent by its conduct
agreed to extend the lease by accepting rent on 2nd December,
1997. On 22nd October, 1997 respondents have been noticed
by the appellant-Corporation calling upon the Corporation to
vacate the suit land and hand over the possession to the
respondent. Respondent filed Civil Suit No. 399 of 1998 with
the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division Kolhapur on
18.4.1998 inter alia praying for possession of the suit land
and mesne profit on the ground that though the respondent
served upon the appellant the notice of surrender of
possession of land, the appellant avoided giving back the
possession.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
Learned Civil Judge decreed the suit and directed the
appellants to hand over vacant possession. Appellants filed
Regular Civil Appeal (Regular Civil Appeal No. 375 of 2000)
before the learned District Judge Kolhapur. During pendency
of the Civil Appeal appellant filed an application under Order 6
Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the
’CPC’) seeking inter alia the following amendment:
(i) By virtue of the Acquisition Act, and the provisions
made thereunder, Caltex India Ltd. was converted
into Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
(ii) As per Section 7 of the Acquisition Act, the
Corporation has legal right to renew the lease on the
same terms and conditions after its expiry.
(iii) The Corporation by its letter dated 18.3.1989 had
intimated to the plaintiff regarding its desire to
renew the lease for a further period of 30 years. So
automatically the lease period has been extended
for 30 years.
(iv) The suit filed on the basis of the said notice has no
legal force.
4. By order dated 2.11.2002 the amendment was allowed.
5. By order dated 4.10.2004 the Civil appeal was dismissed.
Second appeal was filed by the appellant before the Bombay
High Court. By the impugned order the High Court dismissed
the second appeal.
6. During the hearing of the appeal to avoid litigation
between two public bodies the High Court suggested that the
appellants may be granted time to vacate the suit plot subject
to filing of undertaking but the appellant refused to accept the
situation. Under Section 7(3) as noted by the High Court there
is no automatic renewal and there can be renewal if it is so
desired by the Central Government. In the instant case the
other crucial question was whether the company was entitled
to second renewal. The High Court held that option of renewal
was exercised in the year 1978 at that time the provisions of
the Act of 1977 were already enforced.
7. During the pendency of the appeal the appellants
contended that they are entitled to benefit of Section 7(3).
That plea is unacceptable as no reply was sent to the notice of
termination and/or by referring to such right in the written
statement filed in the trial court. If in the year 1979 i.e. on the
expiry of the lease period, even if lease was to be renewed in
terms of Section 7(3), extension could have been granted in
terms of original lease for a period of 20 years from the year
1979. It is to be noted that the appellants are not entitled to
the protection of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Accordingly, the High Court held that there was no merit in
the appeal which was dismissed.
8. Stands before the High Court were reiterated in this
appeal.
9. Section 7(3) reads as follows:
"7(3) On expiry of the term of any lease,
tenancy or arrangement referred to in sub
section (1) or sub section (2), such lease or
tenancy or arrangement shall, if so desired by
the Central Government, be renewed or
continued, so far as may be, on the same
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
terms and conditions on which the lease or
tenancy or arrangement was originally granted
or entered into."
10. As rightly observed by the High Court that there is no
automatic renewal and there can be renewal only if it is so
desired by the Central Government. There is no material
placed before the courts below that there was any desire in
that regard by the Central Government. The appeal is,
therefore, sans merit and deserves to be dismissed. But in
terms of the notice dated 11.4.2005 time for handing over the
possession is extended up to end of June, 2009. Undertaking
in that regard shall be filed within two weeks from today. If the
undertaking is not filed, this order shall not be operative.
11. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.