Hindustan Pertoleum Corporation Ltd A ... vs Kamalnain Prutvichand Sablol And Anr
2024 Latest Caselaw 3228 Bom

Bombay High Court

Hindustan Pertoleum Corporation Ltd A ... vs Kamalnain Prutvichand Sablol And Anr on 2 February, 2024

                                   -1-
                                                         sa619.23.odt

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 910 SECOND APPEAL NO. 619 OF 2023

Hindustan Pertoleum Corporation Ltd             ....Appellant

VERSUS

Kamalnain Prutvichand Sablol & another          .....Respondents

.....
Mr. A. P. Bhandari, Advocate for Appellant


                                CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.

DATE : 2nd FEBRUARY, 2024. PER COURT :

1. Original unsuccessful defendant has preferred this

appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure raising exception

to the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.

736/2014 which is confirmed by First Appellate Court in Regular

Civil Appeal No. 280/2018 by judgment and order dated 6 th

September, 2023.

2. Certain facts are not in dispute such as plaintiff is the

owner of the suit property which was leased out to the defendant vide

lease deed date 12th October, 1976 (Exhibit 26). The lease deed

provided clauses indicating that defendant was entitled for three

extensions of 10 years each i.e. 30 years in total, unless there was

sa619.23.odt

any breach of any conditions of the lease deed on the part of the

defendant. Extension was not agreed beyond 31 st August, 2014. On

30th June, 2016, the owner issued notice of termination of lease,

whereby, the lease deed came to an end with effect from 31 st August,

2014.

3. Admitted terms of contract between the parties indicate

that there is no vested right in the defendant to seek further

extension of the lease beyond 31st August, 2024. Moreover, defendant

is a Public Sector Undertaking, as such statutory protection under

Maharashtra Rent Control Act is not available to the defendant. In

such circumstances, this Court finds no infirmity in the decree of

eviction passed by the Trial Court which is confirmed by First

Appellate Court. Thus, no substantial question of law is involved in

this appeal and in absence thereof second appeal cannot be

entertained. Appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and is

accordingly dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for defendant submits that the

defendant is occupying the suit premises for last 65 years and there

sa619.23.odt

is a running retail outlet from the suit premises. Without prejudice,

he seeks one year time to vacate the suit premises.

5. Appeal is dismissed at the stage before issuance of notice

to other side and as such this Court is not inclined to pass any order.

However, it would be open for the defendant/appellant to make such

request to the Execution Court. The Execution Court to decide the

same having regard to facts and circumstances of the case.

6. Pending application, if any, does not survive and stands

disposed of.

( R. M. JOSHI) Judge dyb