IMPORTANT POINT
A Statutory Corporation, which is a State within meaning of Article 12 of Constitution of India, is not expected to act in blatant disregard to law.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant has approached this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 19th September, 2019, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, in Writ Petition No.16228 of 2014, thereby denying the prayer made by the appellant for a direction to the respondents to vacate the property.

3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal, are as under:

The property in question, being the property consisting of vacant land situated at Old No.320, New No.469, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai 600035, admeasuring 6107 sq.ft. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said premises”) was leased to the predecessor of the respondent No.1Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the BPCL”), viz., Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India by the predecessor of the appellant, initially for a period of 20 years in the year 1960. Thereafter, the lease was renewed for another 20 years and finally for another period of 11 years vide a registered lease deed dated 23rd April, 1999. The said lease period came to an end on 31st December, 2009. On the said premises, respondent No.1-BPCL put up a petrol bunk, which was being operated by the respondent No.2-M/s Vijaya Auto Services, its licensor.

Before the expiry of the lease period, i.e., 31st December, 2009, the appellant had issued a notice on 14th August, 2008 to respondent No.1-BPCL, thereby terminating the lease. Thereafter, on 20th May, 2009, the appellant issued another notice to respondent No.1-BPCL to vacate the said premises. By subsequent notices dated 16th July, 2009 and 3rd October, 2009, the appellant reiterated its demand.

Since respondent No.1-BPCL neither vacated the said premises nor took steps to formalize a fresh lease agreement, the appellant approached the Madras High Court praying for a direction to the respondents to vacate the said premises.

It appears that, in the meantime, there were some attempts to settle the matter, as the respondent No.1-BPCL had shown interest in purchasing the property outright. However, the same did not fructify.

The matter originally was placed before the single judge of the Madras High Court. On 25th April, 2019, the single judge of the Madras High Court passed the following order:

“With regard to maintainable of the writ petition, in so far as the relief prayed for in the writ petition, there is conflict of judgment passed by this Court reported in 2001(1) CTC l (W.A.No.2302 of 1999, dated 20.10.2000), 2001 (1) CTC 10 (W.P.No.20061 of 1998, dated 2.12.2000), CDJ 2016 MHC 5023 (W.P.No.29312 of 2014), CDJ 2018 MHC 1772 (W.P.No.14883 of 2015, dated 22.01.2018) and an unreported judgment in W.P.No.7432 of 2009, dated 22.10.2009 on the one hand held that writ petition is not maintainable, and the judgment passed by this. Court reported in 2005(3) L. W.758 (W.P.No.B,l58 of 2001, dated 19.7.2005), 2005 (3) L.W. 523 (W.P.No.44758 of 2002, dated 21.7.2005), 2011 (1) L.W.146 (W.A.No.1767 of 2003, dated 25.11.2010), 2014 (1) MLJ 385 (W.A. Nos. 630 & 657 of 2011, dated 12.12.2013) and unreported judgments passed by this Court in W.A.Nos.1796 & 1893 of 2014 dated 29.8.2008, W.P.No.13521 of 2002 dated 4.1.2011, W.A. No. 44 of 2000 dated 21.7.2000 and W.A. No.779 of 2008 dated 23.10.2008 on the other hand, writ petition is maintainable.

Therefore, Registry is directed to place this writ petition before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for assigning the writ petition before the appropriate Division Bench, so as to decide the maintainability of the wit petition.”

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, as per the directions of the learned Chief Justice, the matter was placed before the Division Bench of the High Court.

A preliminary objection was taken regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the writ petition involved disputed questions of fact and as such, was not maintainable.

It was, however, contended on behalf of the appellant that no dis