BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED v. RAMA CHANDRASHEKHAR VAIDYA & Anr.

HELD:1.1. The original 1955 lease (which, as a matter 0 of fact, is the only lease deed that came into existence between the parties) was for a period of 25 years and was due to expire on February 28, 1980. On October 17, 1979, the appellant gave the notice of renewal invoking the · renewal clause in the lease deed. In the renewal ·notice, there is no reference at all to any provision, much less section 5(2) of the Act. After February 28, 1980, the appellant admittedly continued in occupation of the suit premises but it is undeniable that no fresh deed of lease was executed and registered renewing the terms of the previous lease. [Para 18] [683-E-G] E F

1.2. In the absence of a fresh deed being executed and registered between the parties, there are only two possibilities; one, that the renewal notice was in exercise of the renewal clause in the lease deed. If that be so, the execution and registration of a fresh deed of lease was essential for the renewal of lease to take place. In c~se the renewal was clai.med in terms of the stipulation in the lease deed, in the absence of a fresh deed of renewal, the appellant's status became that of a G H BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED v. RAMA 677 CHANDRASHEKHAR VAIDYA month to month tenant and after twenty five years, in that A relationship it would be ludicrous for the appellant to turn around and claim renewal of lease under section 5(2) of the Act In case, renewal was claimed under a clause of the previous lease, the appellant has no case and the lessor cannot be faulted for terminating the tenancy B by a notice. under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. [Paras 19, 20 and 22) [683-G-H; 684-A, B-C-F-G] .1.3. The other possibility is that though in the renewal notice dated October 17, 1979 there is no reference to C section 5(2) of the Act, the renewal must be deemed to have taken place under that provision because the Act had come into force on January 24, 1976 and by virtue of section 5(2) of the Act, the renewal clause of the existing lease stood superseded. If the "renewal", beginning from March 1, 1980 is to be deemed under D section 5(2) of the Act that would be a legally valid and correct renewal even in the absence of a fresh deed being executed between the parties. If that be the position, then the appellant has already exercised and exhausted its right under section 5(2) of the Act and there E can be no question of a second renewal in terms of the statutory provision. [Para 23) [684-G; 685-A-C]

4. Viewed from any angle, the appellant cannot claim any further renewal of lease beyond February 28, 2005. F However, having regard to the business of the appellant, it is given two months' time from the date of the judgment to vacate the suit premises. [Paras 24 and 25) [685-D-E] ORDER

1. These interlocutory applications have been filed by the G respondent (the landlord) stating that in gross violation of the undertakings given before the High Court, the petitioner, in

9. AIR 1997 Calcutta 278. H 686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 5 S.C.R. A connivance with its dealer, has inducted a rank outsider to the suit premises.

2. The appeal of the appellant/petitioner (the tenant) is dismissed by the judgment and order pronounced today.

3. It will, therefore, be open to the respondent/landlord to get the decree of eviction passed in his favour duly executed and/or to initiate a proceeding for contempt before the Bombay High Court and/or to seek appropriate reliefs in any other way that may be available to him ~n law.

4. The IAs are disposed of. · B c B.B.B. Matters disposed of.