What is distinction between renewal of lease and extension of lease?

 This review petition has been filed mainly on the ground that the judgments referred by learned counsel for the respondent skipped attention of the Court and could not be considered in the right perspective. It has also been averred that clause (n) of the lease deed executed between the erstwhile lessor Bhanwar Lal and IOCL had not been properly interpreted. In Clause (n) of the said lease deed, though term "renewal" has been employed but looking to the terms and conditions mentioned thereunder, it amounts to "extension", which is an unilateral act of one party for which the consent of another is not required.

 This Court while passing the judgment under review, has taken help of various pronouncements rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court, besides the judgments referred by learned counsel for the respondent IOCL. The judgment of Calcutta High Court in case of Ansuman Mullick Vs. Mallika Investment Co.(P) Ltd. & Ors., reported in AIR 2004 Calcutta p.316 has also been discussed wherein the distinction between the "renewal" and "extension" of the lease deed has been dealt with. Similarly, the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. V. Ashvinraj, reported in 1997 (1) All India Rent Control Journal p.408 has also been considered on the point of renewal of lease. This Court has been benefitted by these judgments while coming to the conclusion in the matter in hand.

14. Clause (n) of the lease deed has also been critically examined while reproducing the same in the said judgment. Taking note of the fact that in this Clause, everywhere the term "renewal" has been used and not "extension", it has been inferred that by the said lease deed, only "renewal" of the lease deed was contemplated and not the "extension" thereof. It is, thus, clear that the distinction between the concept of "renewal" and "extension" has been clearly considered by the Court while passing the judgment dated 1.3.2016 and the plea raised by learned counsel for the respondent IOCL has been rejected.

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vs Navratan Singh on 6 October, 2016

Citation:AIR 2017(NOC)392 Raj

1. This review petition has been filed by defendant/respondent Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. with a prayer to review the judgment dated 01.03.2016 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in SB Civil First Appeal No.437/2011 whereby the appeal filed by Navratan Singh Rajpurohit was allowed and the eviction decree came to be passed in his favour regarding the disputed land.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present review petition are that Navratan Singh Rajpurohit purchased suit land in court auction on 14.1.2008 situated at village Fanda Dakan, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur on which defendant IOCL had set up a petrol pump. Lease of this plot was granted by Collector, Udaipur in favour of Shri Bhanwar Lal against whom, a decree was passed in civil suit No.35/05. In execution proceeding thereof, the said land was auctioned and was purchased by Navratan Singh Rajpurohit. On 28.2.1997, Bhanwar Lal sub-leased the said land to IOCL for setting up a petrol pump for original period of 15 years, which was liable to be extended for a further period of 15 years in terms of Clause (n) of the lease deed dated 28.2.1997 executed between Bhanwar Lal and IOCL.

3. After purchase of the said land by Navratan Singh Rajpurohit, he filed a suit against IOCL, which was decreed by the trial Court to the extent of payment of monthly lease charges only and the relief for eviction was refused. Against the said judgment, first appeal was preferred by Navratan Singh Rajpurohit, which was allowed by the judgment under review.

4. This review petition has been filed mainly on the ground that the judgments referred by learned counsel for the respondent skipped attention of the Court and could not be considered in the right perspective. It has also been averred that clause (n) of the lease deed executed between the erstwhile lessor Bhanwar Lal and IOCL had not been properly interpreted. In Clause (n) of the said lease deed, though term "renewal" has been employed but looking to the terms and conditions mentioned thereunder, it amounts to "extension", which is an unilateral act of one party for which the consent of another is not required. This principle was enunciated in the judgments cited by learned counsel for the respondent but somehow could not be properly considered by the Court while passing the judgment under review. The judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. Vs. Lalji Tandon, reported in AIR 2004 SC p.32 has been specifically referred in this respect by learned counsel for the petitioner during his arguments on the review petition. He has also referred to the judgment in case of BCCI & Anr. Vs. Netaji Cricket Club & Ors., reported in 2005 AIR SCW p.230 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that application for review will be maintainable also on account of some mistake which may be in the nature of undertaking and also includes misconception of facts and law by the Court. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment in case of Nalagarh Dehati Cooperative Transport Society Ltd. Vs. Beli Ram, reported in AIR 1981 HP p.1 wherein it has been laid down that failure of the Court to take into consideration an existing decision of the Supreme Court or taking a different or contrary view on a point covered by its judgment would also amount to a mistake or error apparent on the fact of the record. Learned counsel has further referred the judgments which had been relied upon by him during the earlier arguments upon which the order under review came to be passed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/respondent has contended that all the judgments referred by learned counsel for the petitioner have been exhaustively dealt with by the Coordinate Bench of this Court while passing the judgment under review. So, it cannot be said that attention of the Court has skipped any of the judgments referred by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has also contended that Clause (n) of lease deed dated 28.2.1997, has also been elaborately discussed by the Court and it has been rightly concluded by it that it is not the "extension" but "renewal", which has been contemplated by way of the said lease deed. He has specifically referred to para No.32 of the judgment under review in this regard.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/respondent has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati & Ors., reported in 2014 DNJ (SC) p.40. In para 16 (B) of the judgment, certain eventualities have been laid down wherein the review will not be maintainable. Relevant part of the same is reproduced as below :-

            "(B) When        the       review       will   not   be
       maintainable :

(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.

(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.

(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.

(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.

(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error.

(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.

(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.

(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the Appellate Court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.

(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived."

7. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions made by learned counsels and also perused the judgment dated 01.03.2016, which is under review.

8. At the outset, it appears worth mentioning that the scope of review is limited to the extent permissible as per various pronouncements made in this regard. At the cost of repetition, it will be appropriate to mention that eventualities mentioned above in Clauses (iii), (v) (vii),

(viii) and (ix) of para 16 of the Kamlesh Verm's case (supra) are very material to be kept in mind while considering the rival contentions.

9. When the judgment under review is thoroughly considered, it comes out abundantly clear that various judgments cited by learned counsel for the defendant/respondent (petitioner herein) have been elaborately considered by the Court from Para 25 onwards. The reasons have also been assigned as to how the cited judgments are distinguishable in the matter under consideration. At page 41 to 43 of the judgment under review, the principles laid down in Lalji Tandon's case (supra) have also been discussed and in light thereof, it has been analyzed how clause (n) of the lease deed does not mean and indicate to "extension", but it implies only "renewal" of the lease deed. The Court while analyzing the whole facts and legal position relevant to the case in hand has arrived at the conclusion to allow the appeal.

10. In view of above, it cannot be said that the judgments referred by learned counsel for the respondent (petitioner herein) skipped the attention of the Court, thus, an occasion has arisen to review the judgment. Lalji Tandon's case (supra) has also been dealt with by the Court while passing the judgment dated 1.3.2016, which has been specifically referred by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding this review petition.

11. In my considered opinion, the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner rendered in BCCI's case (supra) and Nalagarh Dehati Cooperative Transport Society's case (supra) do not help the petitioner because while passing the judgment under review, no opinion contrary to the view expressed by Hon'ble Supreme Court has been taken by this Court and no misconception of facts and law apparently appear in the said judgment.

12. It is established legal position that the review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case nor it can be considered as an appeal in disguise whereby any erroneous decision can be attempted to be re-heard and corrected. For exercising the jurisdiction in review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, the error must be apparent on the face of record and should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. These principles have been enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamlesh Verma's case (supra). When the judgments sought to be reviewed is examined in the light of the principles mentioned hereinabove, it comes out that it is not the case where the review jurisdiction is required to be exercised.

13. This Court while passing the judgment under review, has taken help of various pronouncements rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court, besides the judgments referred by learned counsel for the respondent IOCL. The judgment of Calcutta High Court in case of Ansuman Mullick Vs. Mallika Investment Co.(P) Ltd. & Ors., reported in AIR 2004 Calcutta p.316 has also been discussed wherein the distinction between the "renewal" and "extension" of the lease deed has been dealt with. Similarly, the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. V. Ashvinraj, reported in 1997 (1) All India Rent Control Journal p.408 has also been considered on the point of renewal of lease. This Court has been benefitted by these judgments while coming to the conclusion in the matter in hand.

14. Clause (n) of the lease deed has also been critically examined while reproducing the same in the said judgment. Taking note of the fact that in this Clause, everywhere the term "renewal" has been used and not "extension", it has been inferred that by the said lease deed, only "renewal" of the lease deed was contemplated and not the "extension" thereof. It is, thus, clear that the distinction between the concept of "renewal" and "extension" has been clearly considered by the Court while passing the judgment dated 1.3.2016 and the plea raised by learned counsel for the respondent IOCL has been rejected. In view thereof, the prayer for review does not appear to be maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter has already been negatived after thorough consideration.

14. In view of the discussions made above, I am not inclined to exercise the review jurisdiction in this matter. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.

( DEEPAK MAHESHWARI ), J.

Arun/PS

Print Page