Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, ... vs Mr. Thakorbhai Ranchhodji Desai, Mr. ... on 21 February, 2003 cites

Trade Centre Developers And Builders ... vs Union Of India And Anr. on 13 March, 1984

4. The impugned order is sought to be challenged firstly on the ground that the order dated 28.2.2001 passed by the trial Judge being in exercise of powers under Order XV-A of CPC, no Appeal was maintainable and therefore, the impugned order is without jurisdiction and on that count itself deserves to be set aside. In the alternative, impugned order is sought to be challenged on the ground that the lower appellate court failed to consider that the right of renewal was assured to the petitioners under the original lease agreement itself, besides there being statutory recognition to the said in terms of Section 5(2) r/w Section 7(3) of the said Act and the impugned order has been passed totally ignoring the same and therefore, the same is contrary to the provision of law as well as the terms of the Agreement between the parties. On the other hand, the impugned order is sought to be justified as regards its maintainability by referring to the provisions of Order 39 Rule 10 of CPC contending that the relief which was claimed by the respondents during the pendency of the Suit was in terms of Order 39 Rule 10 of CPC and any order passed under those provisions of the law is appealable in terms of Order 41-1(r) of CPC and therefore, no fault can be found with the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction by the Bench of the Small Causes Court. On merits, it is submitted that though terms of the agreement between the parties entitled the petitioners for renewal of the lease, the proposal for renewal was not accepted by the respondents in as much as that the petitioners insisted for the rent to be Rs. 5000/- per month whereas respondents had proposed Rs. 6250/- per month and as the proposal of the respondents was not accepted by the petitioners, there was no renewal for a period of 25 years as sought to be claimed by the petitioners. It is also submitted on behalf of the respondents that provisions of Section 5(2) of the said Act merely enables the petitioners to seek renewal but subject to the other provisions of law including requirement of registration of the lease and admittedly in the case in hand, there is no such lease deed registered and therefore, petitioners at the most could have claimed to have occupied the premises either as a tenant holding over or the tenancy being month to month and same having been terminated by lawful notice, the petitioners cannot insist for continuation of occupation of the suit premises. Reliance is placed in the reported decision of the Division Bench in the case of Trade Centre D & B. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and unreported decision of Division Bench in the matter of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Tahsildar and Ors. reported in Writ Petition No. 235/85 delivered on 21.3.1991 on behalf of the petitioners in support of their contention.
Bombay High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1