This is an appeal by the defendants in the suit. It appears that the plaintiffs had leased out the land in the year 1957 for a period of 20 years to Burmah Shell and by virtue of provisions of Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1976 and by the notification issued thereunder the BPCL became the lessee of the land. The appellants again entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs to lease out the land for 20 years i.e. upto 31st of October, 1996. Admittedly with the permission of the plaintiffs, some construction was made over the land and a Petrol Pump has been operated. A notice dated 1.6.1996 was issued by the plaintiffs intending not to extend the terms of the lease and terminating the tenancy. The suit was filed on 28.10.1996 for a mandatory injunction and for the delivery of the possession. It appears that during the pendency of the suit, an application was moved by the defendants under Section 29-A (5) of the Act before the trial court. The said application has been rejected by the trial court on 17.11.1997. The revision filed against the order of the trial court has also been dismissed by this Court on 4.1.2007 against which appellants filed Special Leave Petition which has been disposed of vide order dated 15.1.2010. The apex Court upheld the order passed by this Court with the direction that it is made open to the appellants to claim the benefit of Section 29-A (3) of the Act in the pending suit and the Court has been directed to decide whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Section 29-A (3) of the Act or not without expressing any opinion on merit. In pursuance thereof, an application under Section 29-A (3) of the Act was moved and it was claimed that the suit is barred under Sections 20 of Act No. 13 of 1972 read with Section 29-A (3) of the Act. The trial court decided the said application along with suit and rejected the plea of the appellants. The trial court has decreed the suit. Against the order of the trial court, the appellants filed an appeal which has been dismissed by the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that when the suit was filed on 28.10.1996, the relationship of landlord and tenant did exist as the term of the lease was going to expire on 31.10.1996, therefore, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were applicable. The construction was made with the permission of the landlord therefore, the construction made over the land falls within the purview of the building and the appellants were entitled for the benefit of Sections 29-A (6) read with Section 20 (1) of the Act.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the land was given on lease in 1957 on a rent of Rs.100/- per month and the same is continuing. The land is approximately 250 squire yards. The term of the lease has been expired on 31.10.1996 therefore, the possession over the land is illegal. He submitted that the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the Act is not applicable in view of proviso to Section 21 of the Act inasmuch as after the expiry of the period, the relationship of landlord and tenant ceased. Apart from this, a detailed finding has been recorded by both the courts below that the provisions of Section 29-A (3) are not applicable. He further submitted that the licence to run the Petrol Pump has been expired. No objection certificate has been cancelled and on a meagre amount the appellants are retaining the land.
On the facts and circumstances, the Court is of the view that the following substantial questions of law do arise and the appeal is liable to be admitted on the following questions:-
1- Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the suit was not maintainable before the Civil Court being barred by U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972?
2- Whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Section 29-A (3) read with Section 20 where by the suit for eviction was barred except on the grounds mentioned therein?
3- Whether the courts below are justified in law in not considering the claim of appellants under Section 29-A (3) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 despite the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 391 of 2010 dated 15.1.2010?
4- Whether the courts below are justified in law in holding that the argument that suit is barred by U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is without force as the Hon'ble High Court has held that suit is maintainable in Civil Court, without appreciating that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 361 of 2010 filed against the said order of Hon'ble High Court directed the appellants to claim benefit under Section 29-A (3) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972?
Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.
List for hearing in the week commencing 14.5.2012.
Having regards to the fact that the lease period has been expired and the same has not been extended and only a sum of Rs.100/- per month is being paid towards rent, the Court is of the view that the rent is meagre. In the circumstances, as an interim relief, dispossession of the appellants is stayed provided the appellants may pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards rent which will be paid within one week of each commencing month w.e.f. 1.4.2012.
Office is directed to summon the lower court record at the cost of the appellants, which the appellants may deposit within one week.
Order Date :- 28.3.2012 OP