Bombay High Court Dismisses BPCL's Second Appeal in Eviction Suit Based on Lease Expiry. Court holds that under Section 111(a) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a lease determined by efflux of time does not require notice to quit, and the Burmah Shell Acquisition Act does not create a statutory tenancy.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a second appeal filed by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) against a decree of eviction passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court in favour of the respondent-landlord, Shri Bharat Krishnalal Thakkar. The landlord had leased a property to BPCL's predecessor, Burmah Shell, under a registered lease deed dated 01/07/1952 for a term of 50 years, expiring on 01/07/2002. After the expiry of the lease term, the landlord filed a suit for eviction on three grounds: non-renewal of the lease, bona fide requirement, and unauthorized construction. The trial court decreed eviction solely on the ground of expiry of the lease term, finding against the landlord on the other two grounds. The appellate court confirmed the decree. In the second appeal, BPCL argued that the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of its Undertakings in India) Act 1976 created a statutory tenancy, and that a notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was required. The High Court examined the provisions of the Burmah Shell Act and the lease deed. It held that the Act does not create a statutory tenancy or extend the lease. The lease was determined by efflux of time under Section 111(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and no notice to quit was required. The court also rejected the argument that acceptance of rent after the expiry of the lease term constituted a waiver under Section 113 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, holding that waiver of forfeiture does not apply to expiry of term. The court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the eviction decree.

Headnote

A) Property Law - Lease Determination - Efflux of Time - Section 111(a) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - The lease in favour of BPCL expired by efflux of time on 01/07/2002 and was not renewed. The court held that under Section 111(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a lease determined by efflux of time does not require a notice to quit under Section 106. The Burmah Shell (Acquisition of its Undertakings in India) Act 1976 does not create a statutory tenancy or extend the lease beyond its term. The eviction decree was upheld. (Paras 6-18)

B) Property Law - Notice to Quit - Applicability - Section 106 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - The court held that Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which requires a notice to quit for leases from year to year or month to month, does not apply when the lease is determined by efflux of time under Section 111(a). Since the lease had a fixed term ending on 01/07/2002, no notice to quit was necessary. (Paras 12-14)

C) Property Law - Waiver of Forfeiture - Section 113 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - The court held that Section 113 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which deals with waiver of forfeiture, is not applicable to a lease determined by efflux of time. The acceptance of rent after the expiry of the lease term does not create a new tenancy or waive the determination of the lease. (Paras 15-16)

D) Statutory Interpretation - Burmah Shell Acquisition Act - Sections 3, 5, 7, 11 - The court held that the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of its Undertakings in India) Act 1976 does not create a statutory tenancy in favour of BPCL. The Act only provides for acquisition of the undertaking and does not extend or renew leases. The rights of BPCL are governed by the lease deed and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. (Paras 7-11)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the lease in favour of BPCL stood determined by efflux of time on 01/07/2002 and whether the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of its Undertakings in India) Act 1976 creates a statutory tenancy in favour of BPCL, thereby requiring a notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Second Appeal dismissed. The judgment and decree of the Appellate Court confirming the eviction decree of the Trial Court is upheld. Interim Application disposed of.

Law Points

  • Lease determined by efflux of time
  • Notice to quit not required under Section 111(a) Transfer of Property Act
  • 1882
  • Burmah Shell (Acquisition of its Undertakings in India) Act 1976 does not create statutory tenancy
  • Section 106 Transfer of Property Act
  • 1882 not applicable when lease expires by efflux of time
  • Section 113 Transfer of Property Act
  • 1882 waiver of forfeiture not applicable to expiry of term
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2022 LawText (BOM) (09) 113

SECOND APPEAL NO. 342 OF 2021 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3119 OF 2021

2022-09-06

S. M. Modak, J.

Shri Atul Damle, Senior Advocate, i/by Shri S. R. Page for the Appellants; Mr. Dushyant Purekar a/w Mr. Rajat Dedhia for the Respondent

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Territory Manager

Shri Bharat Krishnalal Thakkar

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil second appeal against concurrent findings of eviction decree based on expiry of lease term.

Remedy Sought

Appellants (BPCL) sought to set aside the eviction decree and dismissal of the suit.

Filing Reason

Appellants challenged the concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court decreeing eviction on the ground of expiry of lease term.

Previous Decisions

Trial Court decreed eviction on ground of non-renewal of lease; Appellate Court confirmed the decree.

Issues

Whether the lease in favour of BPCL stood determined by efflux of time on 01/07/2002? Whether the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of its Undertakings in India) Act 1976 creates a statutory tenancy in favour of BPCL? Whether a notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was required? Whether acceptance of rent after expiry of lease term constitutes waiver under Section 113 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the Burmah Shell Act creates a statutory tenancy and that a notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was required. Appellants argued that acceptance of rent after expiry of lease term constitutes waiver under Section 113 of the Transfer of Property Act. Respondent argued that the lease expired by efflux of time and no notice to quit is required under Section 111(a) of the Transfer of Property Act.

Ratio Decidendi

A lease determined by efflux of time under Section 111(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 does not require a notice to quit under Section 106. The Burmah Shell (Acquisition of its Undertakings in India) Act 1976 does not create a statutory tenancy or extend the lease. Acceptance of rent after expiry of term does not constitute waiver under Section 113 as that section applies only to forfeiture, not to expiry of term.

Judgment Excerpts

The issue about lapsing of the duration of the lease deed on 01/07/2022 was answered in favour of the Plaintiff and findings of the trial Court are confirmed. So the scope of enquiry in this appeal is limited to that issue only. Under Section 111(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, a lease determined by efflux of time does not require a notice to quit under Section 106. The Burmah Shell (Acquisition of its Undertakings in India) Act 1976 does not create a statutory tenancy in favour of BPCL.

Procedural History

The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction in the trial court, which was decreed on the ground of expiry of lease term. The defendants (BPCL) appealed to the appellate court, which confirmed the decree. BPCL then filed a second appeal before the High Court of Bombay.

Acts & Sections

  • Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Section 106, Section 111(a), Section 113
  • Burmah Shell (Acquisition of its Undertakings in India) Act, 1976: Sections 3, 5, 7, 11
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Accused in POCSO Case for Molesting Minor Daughter — Evidence of Mother and Neighbors Found Credible, Sentence Reduced to 5 Years. The court held that the conviction under Section 10 of POCSO Act was sustaina...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds ESI Coverage for BCCI as 'Shop' Under ESI Act — Sports Body Engages in Systematic Commercial Activity. BCCI held to be a 'shop' under notification dated 18th September 1978 issued under Section 1(5) of the Employees' State...