Case Note & Summary
The respondent, Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Pvt. Ltd., is the owner of a suit plot admeasuring 45,022 square yards and another portion of 153 square yards at Parel, Mumbai, as successor of Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Trust Settlement 1872. The Trust executed an indenture of lease dated 1st November, 1900 in favour of Maneckjee Petit Manufacturing Company Ltd., predecessor of the petitioner National Textile Corporation Ltd. The lease was for 99 years from 1st November, 1900, with a covenant for renewal for a further term of 99 years on the same terms. The petitioner became the successor lessee. The lease expired by efflux of time on 31st October, 1999. The respondent issued a notice dated 30th March, 2001 terminating the tenancy and calling upon the petitioner to vacate. The petitioner did not vacate, leading to the filing of T.E. & R. Suit No.428/451/2001 by the respondent for eviction. The Trial Judge decreed the suit on 22nd November, 2006, directing the petitioner to hand over vacant possession. The petitioner's appeal (Appeal No.88 of 2007) was dismissed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Bombay on 15th September, 2008. The petitioner then filed the present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The main legal issues were whether the lease was for 99 years with a renewal clause or in perpetuity, and whether the notice of termination was valid under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The petitioner argued that the lease was in perpetuity and that the notice was invalid. The respondent contended that the lease was for a fixed term and the notice was valid. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the lease deed clearly created a lease for 99 years with a renewal clause, and the lessee did not exercise the renewal option. The notice of termination was valid as it gave 15 days' clear notice and expired with the end of the month of tenancy. The court found no perversity or jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings of the courts below and dismissed the revision application with costs.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Lease Deed Interpretation - Renewal Clause - Lease deed dated 1st November, 1900 demised suit plot for 99 years with a covenant for renewal for a further term of 99 years - Court held that the lease was not in perpetuity but for a fixed term with a right of renewal, and the lessee failed to exercise the renewal option - (Paras 4-10) B) Property Law - Notice of Termination - Section 106 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Notice dated 30th March, 2001 terminating tenancy was valid as it gave 15 days' clear notice and expired with the end of the month of tenancy - Court held that the notice complied with Section 106 and the concurrent findings of the courts below were correct - (Paras 11-15) C) Civil Procedure - Revision under Section 115 CPC - Scope - High Court's revisional jurisdiction is limited to jurisdictional errors and cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless perverse - Court found no perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment - (Paras 16-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the lease deed dated 1st November, 1900 created a lease for 99 years with a renewal clause or a lease in perpetuity; and whether the notice of termination dated 30th March, 2001 was valid under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application with costs, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below that the lease was for 99 years with a renewal clause and the notice of termination was valid under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Law Points
- Lease deed interpretation
- renewal clause
- notice of termination under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
- Section 115 CPC revision jurisdiction
- concurrent findings of fact
