BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. versus P. KESAVAN AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 811 · Decided: 05-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

J 
1. 
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. 
A 
V. 
P. KESA VAN AND ANR. 
APRIL 5, 2004 
(V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
B 
Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings) Act, 1976: 
Ss. 5(1),(2),(7),(32) and JI-Lease deed with renewal clause in favour 
of Burmashel/-On coming into force of the Act, appellant exercised its option c 
to renew the lease-Courts below holding that since documents as per s. 107 
of Transfer of Property Act were not filed lease could not be renewed-Held, 
in view of ss.5(1) and (2) right of renewal was created in appellant and in the 
event of exercise of its option, existing lease stood renewed on the same terms 
and conditions-1976 Act, being a special statute has an overriding effect D 
over the general law i.e. the Transfer of Property Act -However, as appellant 
I 
' 
does not want second renewal, it would_ pay I 0 times of origin11l rental from 
~ 
date of expily of original lease-Transfer of Property Act, 1882-s.107-
Constitution of India-Article 142. 
Maxim: 
E 
'Genera/ia specia/ibus non derogant-Applicability of 
Predecessor-in-interest of !he respondents, executed in the year 1967 
a lease-deed of the suit property in favour of Burmah Shell for installation 
(.' 
of pumps service/filling stations for 20 years with a renewal clause. By F 
...... 
virtue of Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings) Act, 1976, the right, 
title and interest of Burma Shell in relation to its undertakings in India 
stood transferred to and vested in the Central Government w.e.f. 24.1.1976 
Consequently, the appellant came in possession of the suit property. The 
lessor by a notice dated 4.2.1987 purported to terminate the tenancy and 
called upon the appellant to vacate the premises. In turn the appellant by G 
letter dated 19.5.1987 exercised its option to renew the lease for a further 
period of 20 years on the existing terms and conditions. The lessor filed a 
suit for eviction. The trial court decr.eed the suit holding that although in 
terms of s.5 of the Act the lease could be renewed, but necessary documents 
811 
H 
} 
\ 
812 
SUPREME COURT RJ:PORTS 
f2004] 3 S.C.R. 
A as per s.107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 were not filed. The first 
appeal filed by the lessee before the District Judge was dismissed, so also 
the second appeal before the High Court. 
In the appeals filed by the lessee it was contended for the appellant 
B 
that the courts below erred in holding that s.107 of the Transfer of 
Property Act was attracted in the instant case. It was submitted that by 
virtue of s.11 of the 1976 Act, provisions thereof would prevail over the 
Transfer of Property Act. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
c 
HELO: I. I. By reason of the provisions of the Burmah Shell 
(Acquisition of Undertakings) Act, 1976, the right, title and interest of 
Burmah Shell vested in the Central Government and consequently upon 
the appellant Company. A lease of immovable property is also an asset 
and/or right in an immovable property. The lease-hold right thus held by 
D Burmah Shell vested in the appellant. Sub-section (1) of s. 5 of the 1976 
Act provides for a legal fiction in terms whereof the appellant became a 
lessee in respect of the leasehold. By reason of sub-s. (2) of s.5 of the Act 
' . 
which is imperative in character and has to be construed as such, a right 
~ 
of renewal was created in the appellant in terms whereof in the event of 
E 
exercise of its option, the existing lease was renewed for a further term 
on the same terms and conditions; The legislative scheme contained in the 
Act leads to only one conclusion that if Government company expresses 
its desire to renew the lease, the same would stand renewed on the same 
terms and conditions. 1817-C, G, O; 818-Fi 
F 
1.2. The Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings) Act,1976 is a 
"' 
special statute vis-a-vis the Transfer of Property Act, 18112 which is a 
~ 
general statute. The maxim 'generafia specialibus non derogant' shall thus 
apply; and, as admittedly the appellant has expressed its desire to renew 
the lease, sub-s.(7) of s.5 read with sub-s.(3) of s. 7 of 1976 Act shall be 
attracted. Furthermore, Section 11 of the Act provides for a non-obstante 
G clause. An overriding effect, therefore, has been given thereby over all 
other laws for the time being in force. The provisions of the Transfer of 
Property Act have no application in a case where a transfer of property 
+ 
takes place by operation of law. 1817-C; 

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