BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. MANGILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11/2/2013 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Phalodi and judgment and decree dated 21/9/2019 passed by Addl. District Judge, Phalodi District, Jodhpur, whereby, the suit filed by the respondent no.1 - plaintiff has been decreed and first appeal filed by the appellant has been rejected.

(2.) The respondent no.1 filed a suit for eviction, recovery of arrears and mesne profit qua the premises situated opposite Railway Station, Phalodi on 27/4/1998 with the averments that the property in question belonging to the plaintiff and defendant nos. 3 to 9 originally belonged to the plaintiff's grand father - Aidan Thanvi, which has been let out to various tenants. Aidan Thanvi executed a Will dated 21/10/1974 in favour of Tej Karan Thanvi, father of the plaintiff; Aidan Thanvi died on 30/3/1977 and Tej Karan died on 20/9/1986 and, therefore, the plaintiff and defendant nos. 3 to 9 being legal representatives and heirs of deceased Tej Karan are owners of the suit premises. The suit premises were let out by Aidan Thanvi vide lease deed dated 1/7/1968 for a period of 15 years to Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company of India Limited at Rs. 135/- p.m. as lease rent. The area of the leased premises is 10,000 sq. ft. The lessee was first converted into Burmah Shell Refinery Limited and ultimately as Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. It was alleged that the period of lease expired on 30/6/1983 and the defendant Corporation is in possession as tenant by sufferance. Allegations were made pertaining to material alterations having been affected at the suit premises and, therefore, by notice dated 16/12/1997 the tenancy was terminated w.e.f. 31/1/1998 and the Corporation was required to pay the outstanding lease rent and handover the vacant possession of the premises. The respondents no. 3 to 9 were impleaded being necessary parties, however, no relief was being sought against them. The suit was filed on the grounds of default in payment of rent, reasonable and bonafide requirement of the premises and material alteration without consent.

(3.) The appellant-defendant filed written statement disputing the fact of Will dated 21/10/1974 executed by Aidan Thanvi; ownership of plaintiff and defendants no. 3 to 9 of the suit premises after the death of Tej Karan. It was indicated that after the death of Tej Karan, for a period of 20 years none claimed himself to be the legal representative of Aidan and did not seek lease rent. The defendant was ready and willing to pay the lease rent and defendant no.2 is the licensee of defendant no.1. It was submitted that the claim of rent was barred by limitation and the defendant was prepared to deposit the due rent within limitation. The provisions of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 ('the Act, 1950') are not applicable and the suit was liable to be dismissed.