Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ.
Rahul Yadav & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Others – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4909 OF 2015 (@ SLP(C) NO. 14256 OF 2014)
Decided On : 1-07-2015
(2007) 2 SCC 536 – Relied upon
(2003) 2 SCC 673; (1996) 6 SCC 530 – Referred
(b) Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 – Lessee is a Public Sector Undertaking – Lease for thirty years subsisting – Lessor-appellant whose dealership has been cancelled, cannot claim to retain possession on the basis of ownership of the land as the lease is subsisting – Therefore, he becomes trespasser on public premises – Provisions of the Act apply on all fours – Appellant cannot create any impediment for the respondent-Corporation. (Para 19)
Facts of the case:
The respondent no.1, namely, Indian Oil Corporation issued an advertisement in the newspaper on 6.10.2000 for retail outlet dealership in the state of Delhi and Haryana for which the appellant applied and was selected. Letter of intent was issued in his favour on 6.7.2001. It was stipulated in the said letter of intent that the appellant was required to own a suitable plot of land and entered into a long-term lease with the Corporation at the rate acceptable to the respondent. To meet the mandate of the letter of intent, the appellant bought the land in question for the purpose of getting dealership agreement. On 23.10.2001, the appellant executed a long-term lease of 30 years in accordance with the terms of the advertisement and the letter of intent in favour of the Corporation at the monthly rent of Rs.10,000/-. After completion of formalities, a dealership agreement was entered into between the appellant and the Corporation on 14.5.2002.
The grant of dealership in favour of the appellant was cancelled by the Committee constituted by the Supreme Court and that received the stamp of approval of the Court.
After the decision of this Court, the Corporation terminated the dealership and intended to take back the possession from the dealer with a view to appoint another dealer as specifically permitted in the lease deed as well as in the dealership agreement.
The appellant built a wall to stop the functioning of the retail outlet and refused to hand over the possession which constrained the Corporation to initiate a proceeding for eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 as a valid lease deed existed between the appellant and the respondent, a public sector undertaking.
The appellant participated in the proceeding and after hearing commenced, he sought to go for arbitration, but the said prayer was not accepted by the Estate Officer.
The competent authority, that is, the Estate Officer passed an order of eviction.
The appellant preferred Civil Appeal before the learned District Judge who held that the appellant may be the owner of the premises, but by virtue of the lease deed, it is the respondent who has the right to occupy premises.
The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
Appellant became trespasser on public premises. Therefore he cannot create any impediment for the respondent-Corporation and has to vacate the premises.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant is the owner in possession of the premises being land measuring 2571 sq. yards on Rewari-Palwal-Delhi Road, Rewari and Khewat No. 1139/941, Khatauni no. 1380, Rectangle No. 117, Kila No. 2412/2 (2-0), Khewat No. 1125/930 mm, Khautani No. 136 mm, Rectangle No. 117, Kila No. 24/211 (1-9), Rectangle N. 150, 6/80 share Le. 6 maria out of Kila No. 411 (4-0) total measuring Kanal 5 marla in 3 kittas thereabouts. The respondent no.1, namely, Indian Oil Corporation (for short, the ‘Corporation’) issued an advertisement in the newspaper on 6.10.2000 for retail outlet dealership in the state of Delhi and Haryana for which the appellant applied and was selected. Letter of intent was issued in his favour on 6.7.2001. It was stipulated in the said letter of intent that the appellant was required to own a suitable plot of land and entered into a long-term lease with the Corporation at the rate acceptable to the respondent. To meet the mandate of the letter of intent, the appellant bought the land in question for the purpose of getting dealership agreement. On 23.10.2001, the appellant executed a long-term lease of 30 years in accordance with the terms of the advertisement and the letter of intent in favour of the Corporation at the monthly rent of Rs.10,000/-. After completion of formalities, a dealership agreement was entered into between the appellant and the Corporation on 14.5.2002. Be it noted, as per the letter of intent, the Corporation was to provide certain facilities and develop the land as an outlet with an office building, storage tank and pump, etc. for operating the dealership and it was to charge the appellant a licence fee for the said facilities.
3. The allotment of such petrol pumps by the competent authorities became a front page news item in Indian Express mentioning that there had been grant of retail outlets of petrol pumps to the near and dear ones of the political functionaries on account of political consideration. Number of cases were filed in various courts and all of them were transferred to this Court and a two-Judge Bench in Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 673, after referring to such earlier event that was the subject matter of Common Cause, a Registered Society v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 530, wherein it had been observed that for these kind of allotments, a transparent and objective criteria/procedure has to be evolved based on reason, fair play and non-arbitrariness, adverted to many a facet, namely, the criteria evolved for grant of dealership, the concept of probity in governance and the concept of public interest, the role of the executive and the right of the public to know the circumstance under which their elected representatives get the outlets and/or dealerships/distributorships, and directed as follows:-
“In view of the aforesaid:
I. We appoint a committee comprising Mr Justice S.C. Agrawal, a retired Judge of this Court and Mr Justice P.K. Bahri, a retired Judge of the Delhi High Court, to examine the aforesaid 413 cases. We request the Committee to submit the report to this Court within a period of three months.
II. The Committee would devise its own procedure for undertaking the examination of these cases. If considered necessary, the Committee may appoint any person to assist it.
III. We direct the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India and the four oil companies to render full, complete and meaningful assistance and cooperation to the Committee. The relevant records are directed to be produced before the Committee within five days.
IV. We direct the Ministry to appoint a nodal officer not below the rank of a Joint Secretary for effective working of the Committee.
V. The Central Government, State Government/Union Territories and all others are directed to render such assistance to the Committee as may be directed by it.
VI. The oil companies are directed to provide as per the Committee’s directions, t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
