Case Note & Summary
The case involves a civil revision application filed by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (the applicant/original defendant) against a judgment and order dated 14th December 2011 passed by the Trial Court (Court of Small Causes, Mumbai) and confirmed by the Appellate Bench on 4th June 2019. The suit property is a piece of land admeasuring about 2000 sq. yards at Magathane, Borivali, Mumbai. The respondents (original plaintiffs) are successors-in-title of late Bhagwandas Gordhandas Kapadia, who as Karta of a joint Hindu family entered into a Deed of Lease for Pump Site with the then Burmah-Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited (now Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.) on 9th June 1967 for a period of 20 years commencing from 1st April 1967 at a monthly rent of Rs.1,500/-. The lease expired by efflux of time on 31st March 1987. No fresh lease was executed. The respondents terminated the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and filed a suit for eviction. The Trial Court decreed the suit directing the applicant to deliver vacant possession within 3 months and to conduct an inquiry into mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC. The applicant's appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Bench. The High Court, in revision under Section 115 CPC, held that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and there was no jurisdictional error or perversity. The revision was dismissed, confirming the eviction decree and the inquiry into mesne profits.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Lease - Expiration by Efflux of Time - Lease deed dated 9th June 1967 for 20 years expired on 31st March 1987 - No renewal - Tenant continued as tenant holding over - Landlord terminated tenancy under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Suit for eviction decreed - Concurrent findings of fact - Revision dismissed - Held that the lease had validly expired and the tenancy was duly terminated (Paras 4-6). B) Civil Procedure - Revision - Section 115 CPC - Scope - Concurrent findings of fact - High Court in revision cannot re-appreciate evidence unless there is a jurisdictional error or perversity - No such error found - Revision dismissed - Held that the revision court's jurisdiction is limited to examining whether the subordinate court acted without jurisdiction or illegally (Para 7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below directing the applicant to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises and conduct an inquiry into mesne profits are sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, confirming the judgment and decree of eviction and the order for inquiry into mesne profits.
Law Points
- Lease expiration by efflux of time
- termination of tenancy under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
- mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact not interfered with in revision under Section 115 CPC
