Finally, Rustom Behramji Colah has considered the question
whether a perpetual right of renewal can be held to exist in law. To answer this question, it has relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of U.P. v. Lalji Tandon(2004) 1 SCC 1. And, eventually, it has adopted the Lalji Tandon’s proposition that the Court always leans against a perpetual renewal. So “where there is a clause for renewal subject to the same terms and conditions, it would be construed as giving a right to renewal for the same period as the period of the original lease, but not a right to second or third renewal and so on unless, of course, the language is clear and unambiguous.”{Para 20}
The Court leans against a perpetual right of renewal even when the clause of renewal provides a renewal on the same terms and conditions.” So it has rejected the Corporation’s plea that it has a right for further renewal.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO. 359 OF 2014
IN
REGULAR CIVIL APPEAL NO. 257 OF 2005
IN
REGULAR CIVIL SUIT NO. 1461 OF 1995
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs Shri Champalal Vithuram Jajoo
Print Page
