Case Note & Summary
The case involves a civil revision application filed by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (original defendants) against K. Raheja Reality Pvt. Ltd. (original plaintiffs) challenging an eviction decree. The subject matter is a plot of land admeasuring about 1000 sq. yards bearing CTS 167/5, 167/6, and 167/7 situated at Greenfield, Military Road, Juhu, Mumbai. The plaintiffs' case was that by an Indenture of Lease dated 5th August 1968, the predecessors of the plaintiffs granted a lease in favor of Esso Standard Eastern Inc (predecessors of the defendants) for a period of three years expiring on 31st January 1971. The yearly rent was fixed at Rs.1800/-. The plaintiffs contended that the lease stood determined by efflux of time and the defendants were liable to be evicted. The trial court decreed eviction, which was confirmed by the appellate court. In revision, the defendants argued that the lease had not been determined and that they were entitled to protection under rent control laws. The High Court examined the lease deed and found that the lease was for a fixed term and had expired by efflux of time. The court held that under Section 111(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a lease of immovable property for a fixed term determines by efflux of time. The court noted that the defendants continued in possession after the expiry of the lease term, but that did not create a new lease. The court found no merit in the revision and dismissed it, upholding the eviction decree.
Headnote
A) Lease - Determination by Efflux of Time - Section 111(a) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - The lease was for a fixed term of three years expiring on 31st January 1971. The lessee continued in possession after expiry. The court held that the lease stood determined by efflux of time under Section 111(a) and the lessee became a tenant at sufferance. The eviction decree was upheld. (Paras 1-3) B) Civil Revision - Scope of Interference - Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The revisional court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and appellate court. The court found no jurisdictional error or perversity in the findings. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the lease stood determined by efflux of time under Section 111(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and whether the eviction decree was sustainable.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the civil revision application, upholding the eviction decree passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court.
Law Points
- Lease determination by efflux of time
- Section 111(a) Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
- Eviction decree
- Civil revision
- No interference with concurrent findings
