Uttarakhand High Court
"M/S. Bharat Petroleum ... vs Baba Kali Kamliwala Panchayati ... on 4 January, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
04.01.2023 SA No.2 of 2023
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Present Proposed Second Appeal has
been filed against the judgment and decree
dated 24.09.2022, passed by the learned
Senior Civil Judge, Rishikesh, District
Dehradun in Civil Appeal No.52 of 2001,
"M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
vs. Baba Kali Kamliwala Panchayati Kshetra,
Rishikesh", by which, the First Appeal has
been allowed and the judgment and decree
dated 29.03.2001, passed by the learned
Trial Court in Original Suit No.148 of 1983,
filed by the proposed appellant-plaintiff for
ejectment and recovery of arrear of rent,
has been set aside.
2. Heard Mr. Piyush Garg, learned
counsel for the proposed appellant and Mr.
Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, learned counsel
for the respondent.
3. Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate submitted
that a lease deed dated 12.04.1974
regarding the suit property was executed by
the appellant-plaintiff in favour of the
Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing
Company of India Limited (in short,
"Burmah Shell"). The right, title and
interest of Burmah Shell, in relation to its
undertakings were vested in the Central
Government under the provisions of the
Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings
in India) Act, 1976. The respondent is a
Government Company. He submitted that
the respondent-defendant relied upon an
alleged Lease Deed dated 13.10.1950.
4. Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate further
submitted that plaintiff is a Public Religious
and Charitable Society, registered under the
West Bengal Societies Registration Act. The
said Act, 1976 does not have overriding
effect on the provisions of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882. He further submitted
that a tin-roof structure was raised by the
respondent on the said vacant leased land.
5. Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate argued that
a tin-roof structure does not fall within the
definition of "Permanent Construction" for
the purposes of Section 29A of the Uttar
Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of
Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (as
applicable in the State of Uttarakhand).
6. The Second Appeal is being admitted
on the following substantial questions of
law:-
(i) Whether the provisions of Burmah
Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in
India) Act shall have overriding effect
upon all the provisions of the Transfer
of Property Act?
(ii) Whether a tin-roof structure shall
fall within the definition of "permanent
construction" for the purposes of
Section 29A of the UP Act No.13 of
1972 and whether the consent of the
landlord required for that purpose
should be an express consent in
writing?
(iii) Whether alleged Lease Deed,
executed in the year 1950, in favour of
Burmah Shell, was binding between
the parties even after execution of
Lease Deed dated 12.04.1974,
executed in favour of Burmah Shell?
(iv) Whether the learned Appellate
Court erred in law and failed to
appreciate the nature of burden of
proof required by a plaintiff to be
discharged for claiming itself to be a
public religious and charitable
institution and that plaintiff sufficiently
proved itself to be public religious and
public charitable institution?
7. Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate submitted
that in view of the nature of the case, the
appellant does not want to press the Stay
Application.
8. The Stay Application (IA No.1 of 2023)
is dismissed as not pressed.
List this case on 01.05.2023.
(Alok Kumar Verma, J.)
04.01.2023
JKJ/
