BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED versus RAMA CHANDRASHEKHAR VAIDYA AND ANR.

Citation: [2013] 5 S.C.R. 674 · Decided: 02-04-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 5 S.C.R. 674 
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED 
v. 
RAMA CHANDRASHEKHAR VAIDYA AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2770 of 2013) 
APRIL 2, 2013 
[AFTAB ALAM AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.] 
Property Law - Lease - Renewal - Statutory right as 
provided u/s. 5(2) of the 1976 Act - Exercise of - Scope -
C Burrnah Shell, predecessor of appellant-oil company, came 
in occupation of property in question on basis of lease deed 
dated September 22, 1955 - Lease was for 25 years and due 
to expire on February 28, 1980 - Lease deed gave to the 
lessee the unilateral right of renewal for an additional period 
D of 25 years - 1976 Act came into force whereafter the right, 
title and interest of Burmah Shell first stood transferred to and 
vested in the Central Government and later, in the appellant-
company - On October 17, 1979, appellant-lessee gave 
notice of renewal - After February 28, 1980, appellant 
E continued in occupation of the suit property but no fresh deed 
of lease executed and registered renewing the terms of 
previous lease - Held: In case renewal was claimed in terms 
of stipulation in the lease deed, in absence of a fresh deed of 
renewal, the appellant's status became that of a month to 
F month tenant and after 25 years in that relationship, it would 
be ludicrous for appellant to tum around and claim renewal 
of lease u/s.5(2) - The lessor cannot be faulted for terminating· 
the tenancy by a notice under the TPA Act -
The other 
possibility is that though in the renewal notice dated October 
17, 1979 there is no reference to s.5(2), the renewal must be 
G deemed tq have taken place under that provision and by 
virtue of s .. 5(2), renewal clause of the existing lease stood 
superseded - If that be the'> position, then appellant has 
already exercised and exhausted its right uls.5(2) and there 
H 
6~ 
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED v. RAMA 675 
CHANDRASHEKHAR VAIDYA 
can be no question of a second renewal in terms of the A 
statutory provision - Viewed from any angle, the appellant 
cannot claim any further renewal of lease beyond February 
28, 2005 - Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in 
India) Act, 1976 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 
Burmah Shell, the predecessor of appellant-oil 
company, came in occupation of the land in question on 
basis of a lease deed dated September 22, 1955. The 
lease was for a period of 25 years. The lease deed gave 
B 
to the lessee the unilateral right of renewal for an C 
additional period of 25 years. On January 24, 1976, the 
Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 
1976 came into force and by virtue of section 3 of the Act, 
the right, title and interest of Burmah Shell first stood 
transferred to and vested in the Central Government and 
later, following a notification issued by the Central D 
Government under section 7(1) of the Act, were 
transferred to and vested in the appellant-Company. 
On October 17, 1979, the appellant gave notice to the 
lessor asking for renewal of the lease, for a further period E 
of 25 years with effect from March 1, 1980. The appellant 
continued to occupy the suit premises for the next 25 
years, yet no fresh lease deed was actually executed 
between the parties and registered in renewal of the 
previous lease. 
F 
As the second 25 year term was nearing expiry, 
another notice for renewal of the lease was given on 
behalf of the appellant to the lessor on October 7, 2004. 
The lessor responded by a notice of termination of 
tenancy stating that the 1955 lease had expired on G 
September 21, 1980 and, thereafter the appellant only 
continued as a month to month tenant. The respondent-
lessor also filed a suit for eviction of the appellant in the 
Court of Small Causes which was dismissed. On appeal, 
however, the appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court H · 
676 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
held in favour of the respondent. That order was upheld 
in revision by the High Court. 
In the instant appeal against the decree of eviction, 
the appellant claimed the right of renewal of lease in terms·. 
8 
of section 5(2) of the Act contending that the right of 
renewal under the lease and in terms of section 5(2) of 
the Act are two distinct and separate rights, the former 
being contractual and the latter statutory; and that the 
two rights could, therefore, be exercised separately 
C and successively, independently of each other. 
Dismissing the appeal with costs of Rs.50,000/-, the 
Cour

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.