Bombay High Court Dismisses Revision Against Eviction Decree in Lease Renewal Dispute — Option to Renew Lease Must Be Exercised Before Expiry of Term, Not After. Lease renewal option cannot be exercised after expiry of term; tenant holding over after expiry does not create right to renewal under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 5
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a dispute between Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL), the applicant/defendant, and Navjeevan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., the respondent/plaintiff, regarding the renewal of a lease for premises admeasuring about 10,000 sq. ft. in Madhav Mills Estate, Lamington Road, Bombay. The lease was originally granted by the respondent society to Caltex India Ltd. for a period of 20 years from 1964, with an option for renewal for two further terms of 10 years each, provided the option was exercised before the expiry of the term. The annual rent was Rs.33,000 for the first term, Rs.36,000 for the first renewal, and Rs.39,660 for the second renewal. During the original term, the Central Government acquired the shares and assets of Caltex India Ltd. under the Caltex (Acquisition of Shares of Caltex Oil Refining (India) Ltd. and of the Undertakings in India of Caltex (India) Ltd.) Act, 1977. Under Section 7(1) of that Act, the lease rights vested in the Central Government on the same terms and conditions, and under Section 9, the Government directed vesting of those rights in HPCL, a Government company. The original 20-year lease expired on 30.1.1984. HPCL continued in possession and paid rent, which was accepted by the society. HPCL claimed that it had exercised the option for the first renewal by letter dated 27.1.1984, and the society accepted rent at the enhanced rate of Rs.36,000 per annum, thereby renewing the lease for 10 years. That period expired on 30.1.1994. HPCL did not exercise the option for the second renewal before the expiry of the first renewal term. The society filed a suit for eviction, which was decreed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court. HPCL filed a civil revision application in the High Court. The High Court held that the option to renew must be exercised strictly in accordance with the contract terms, i.e., before the expiry of the term. Since HPCL failed to exercise the option for the second renewal before 30.1.1994, it was not entitled to renewal. The court also held that holding over after expiry does not create any right to renewal. The revision application was dismissed, confirming the eviction decree.

Headnote

A) Lease Law - Renewal of Lease - Option to Renew - Option must be exercised strictly in accordance with contract terms, before expiry of original term - The lease deed provided for two renewal terms of 10 years each, with option to be exercised before expiry of the term - Tenant failed to exercise option before expiry of original 20-year term - Held that option cannot be exercised after expiry, and holding over does not create right to renewal (Paras 2-6).

B) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 116 - Tenant Holding Over - Holding over after expiry of lease does not confer right to renewal - Tenant continued in possession after expiry of original term and first renewal term without exercising option for second renewal - Held that mere holding over does not entitle tenant to claim renewal (Paras 5-6).

C) Caltex (Acquisition of Shares of Caltex Oil Refining (India) Ltd. and of the Undertakings in India of Caltex (India) Ltd.) Act, 1977 - Sections 7(1) and 9 - Vesting of Lease Rights - Lease rights held by Caltex India Ltd. vested in Central Government on same terms and conditions - Central Government directed vesting in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. - Held that the Government company steps into the shoes of the original lessee and is bound by the same terms, including the obligation to exercise renewal option before expiry (Paras 3-4).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the tenant, having failed to exercise the option to renew the lease before the expiry of the original term, is entitled to claim renewal after the expiry of the term, and whether the tenant's holding over after expiry creates any right to renewal.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. The concurrent decrees of eviction passed by the trial court and appellate court are confirmed. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Option to renew lease must be exercised strictly in accordance with contract terms
  • before expiry of original term
  • Section 7(1) of Caltex (Acquisition of Shares of Caltex Oil Refining (India) Ltd. and of the Undertakings in India of Caltex (India) Ltd.) Act
  • 1977 vests lease rights in Central Government on same terms
  • Section 9 allows vesting in Government company
  • Lease renewal option cannot be exercised after expiry of term
  • Tenant holding over after expiry does not create right to renewal.
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2010 LawText (BOM) (04) 47

Civil Revision Application No.756 of 2009

2010-04-29

J.H. Bhatia, J.

Mr.G.S.Godbole for the Applicant; Mr.Satish Shetty a/w Ms.Rehana Kasuri i/by M/s.Banatwala & Co. for the Respondent No.1.

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Navjeevan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.

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

Nature of Litigation

Civil revision application against concurrent decrees of eviction passed by trial court and appellate court in a suit for possession filed by landlord against tenant.

Remedy Sought

The applicant (HPCL) sought to set aside the eviction decree and to be declared entitled to renewal of lease for a further period of 10 years.

Filing Reason

The landlord (respondent no.1) filed a suit for eviction on the ground that the tenant failed to exercise the option for renewal of lease before expiry of the term and thus continued as a tenant holding over without any right to renewal.

Previous Decisions

The trial court decreed the suit for eviction. The appellate court confirmed the decree. Hence, the tenant filed the present civil revision application.

Issues

Whether the tenant, having failed to exercise the option to renew the lease before the expiry of the original term, is entitled to claim renewal after the expiry of the term? Whether the tenant's holding over after expiry of the lease creates any right to renewal?

Submissions/Arguments

The applicant argued that the option for renewal was exercised by letter dated 27.1.1984 and the society accepted rent at enhanced rate, thereby renewing the lease for 10 years. For the second renewal, the applicant claimed that it continued in possession and paid rent, which was accepted, and thus the lease stood renewed. The respondent argued that the option for renewal had to be exercised before expiry of the term, and since the applicant failed to exercise the option for the second renewal before 30.1.1994, there was no renewal. Mere holding over does not create a right to renewal.

Ratio Decidendi

The option to renew a lease must be exercised strictly in accordance with the terms of the contract, i.e., before the expiry of the term. If the tenant fails to exercise the option within the stipulated time, the lease expires and the tenant cannot claim renewal thereafter. Holding over after expiry does not create any right to renewal; it only creates a tenancy at will under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which is determinable at the option of the landlord.

Judgment Excerpts

The option of renewal was to be exercised before the expiry of the term. It is not the case of the applicant that the option for the second renewal was exercised before the expiry of the first renewal term on 30.1.1994. Mere holding over after expiry of the lease does not create any right to renewal. The tenant continues as a tenant holding over under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, which is a tenancy at will and can be terminated by the landlord.

Procedural History

The landlord (respondent no.1) filed a suit for eviction against the tenant (applicant) and other defendants. The trial court decreed the suit. The tenant appealed, and the appellate court confirmed the decree. The tenant then filed the present civil revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the High Court of Bombay.

Acts & Sections

  • Caltex (Acquisition of Shares of Caltex Oil Refining (India) Ltd. and of the Undertakings in India of Caltex (India) Ltd.) Act, 1977: 7(1), 9
  • Transfer of Property Act, 1882: 116
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking to Restrain CIDCO from Enforcing Contractual Stipulation. Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to prevent a party to an agreement from insisting upon a contractual term.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Revision Against Eviction Decree in Lease Renewal Dispute — Option to Renew Lease Must Be Exercised Before Expiry of Term, Not After. Lease renewal option cannot be exercised after expiry of term; tenant holding over aft...