Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INDIRA BANERJEE, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Ajay Bhatia – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6859 of 2022, SLP (C) Nos. 20718, 20737 of 2021
Decided On : 22-09-2022
LEASE - PROPERTY DISPUTE - Companies Act, 2013 - [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.] - [Companies Act, 2013, Section 2(45)] - The judgment discusses the property dispute involving a Government Company under the Companies Act, 2013, and the operation of retail outlets/petrol pumps on leased land. The key legal provisions discussed include the Companies Act, 2013, and the principles of lease and possession of immovable property.
Fact of the Case:
The Appellant, a Government Company, operated retail outlets/petrol pumps on leased land. A property dispute arose regarding the possession of Plot No. 4/4, which was leased to the Appellant, and Plot No. 4/5, which was not part of the suit property. The Respondent filed a suit for recovery of possession of Plot No. 4/4 and mesne profits. The Trial Court decreed the suit, and the High Court confirmed the decree.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Appellant's tenancy in respect of the suit property was terminated, and the Appellant's occupation became illegal from 1st March 2006. The Court directed the Appellant to restore possession of Plot No. 4/4 to the Respondent and pay mesne profits from 1st March 2006.
Issues: The issues included the termination of tenancy, wrongful occupation, and the entitlement to mesne profits. The Court also addressed the identification and possession of the suit property and the execution of the decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Respondent was entitled to possession of Plot No. 4/4 and mesne profits from the Appellant. It emphasized the need for the suit property to be easily identifiable for execution of the decree.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment, and directed the Executing Court to decide the execution applications afresh. It instructed the appointment of a Local Commissioner to demarcate Plot No. 4/4 and restore any excess land to the Appellant. The mesne profits were to be computed from 1st March 2006.
JUDGMENT :
INDIRA BANERJEE, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is against a final judgment and order dated 24th November 2021 passed by the High Court of Delhi dismissing the Execution First Appeals being Ex. F.A. 13 of 2019 and Ex. F.A. 30 of 2019 filed by the Appellant.
3. The Appellant is a Government Company within the meaning of Section 2(45) of the Companies Act, 2013 and carries on business, inter-alia, of refining, distributing and marketing petroleum products all over India.
4. The Appellant operated two separate retail outlets/petrol pumps namely M/s Azadpur Service Station and M/s Tej Service Station, through two different dealers, at two different sites at Azadpur in Delhi. M/s Azadpur Service Station was located on a plot of land admeasuring 9700 sq. ft. at 4/4 Azadpur, G.T. Road, Delhi, hereinafter referred to as “Plot No. 4/4” and M/s Tej Service Station on two plots of land admeasuring 15336 sq. ft. located at 4/5, Azadpur, G.T. Road, Delhi hereinafter referred to as “Plot No. 4/5.”
5. By an indenture of lease dated 15th October 1970, Shadi Lal Bhatia, since deceased, son of Late Chaman Lal Bhatia, resident of 39, Security Police Flats, near Ashoka Hotel, New Delhi, leased out land situated at Mile 4/4, G.T. Karnal Road, Azadpur, Delhi more specifically described in the Schedule to the said indenture of lease, that is, Plot No. 4/4 to M/s CALTEX (India) Ltd. hereinafter referred to as “CALTEX” for a period of ten years, to operate the retail outlet/petrol pump Azadpur Service Station. CALTEX has since merged with the Appellant, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. After the death of Shadi Lal Bhatia, Plot No. 4/4 was inherited by Mrs. Rajeshwari Devi, widow of the said Shadi Lal Bhatia. Mrs. Rajeshwari Devi extended the said lease for a period of ten years.
6. Plot No. 4/4 later devolved on the Respondent No, Shri Ajay Bhatia, Son of Shri Anil Bhatia, who is the owner thereof. On or about 18th January 2001, the Respondent applied for mutation of Plot No. 4/4 being the site of the retail outlet/petrol pump known as M/s Azadpur Service Station.
7. By a letter No. 3542/5 AG/2001 dated 20th January 2001, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi informed the Respondent that the property was being mutated in his name on the basis of documents furnished by him.
8. Plot No. 4/5 was initially let out to Standard Vacuum Oil Company which later became M/s ESSO Standard Eastern Inc, hereinafter referred to as “ESSO.” By a deed of lease dated 9th February 1961, one Sahabzada Nasirddin Ahmed Khan, son of Nawabzada Mirza Bashiruddin Ahmed Khan, resident of H. No. 2205/VI, Qasamjan Street, Delhi, leased out 6,106 sq. ft. land fully described in the Schedule to the said deed of lease, that is, Plot No. 4/5 to Standard Vacuum Oil Company, predecessor in interest of ESSO. ESSO and/or its predecessor in interest Standard Vacuum Oil Company set up a retail outlet/petrol pump at plot No. 4/5 under the name and style of M/s Tej Service Station.
9. By a letter No. F21 (21)-68-L&B dated April 1969, the Delhi Administration, Land and Building Department informed the District Manager of ESSO that ESSO was in occupation of land measuring 958 sq. yards belonging to the Delhi Administration, and demanded rent assessed at Rs. 12,000/- per annum for the said land, for the period from 28th September 1968 to 27th September 1969. Delhi Administration agreed to execute a lease agreement thereafter.
10. The said lease in respect of Plot No. 4/5 which had expired by efflux of time was extended for a further period of 10 years at a monthly rent of Rs. 3,000/- for the period from 1st June 1988 to 31st May 1998 and Rs. 4,500/- per month for the period from 1st June 1998 to 31st May 2008.
11. The Respondent filed a title suit being C.S. (OS) No. 1828 of 2006 for recovery of possession of Plot 4/4 measuring 9700 sq. ft. situated at 4/4 Azadpur, G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi.
12. In the plaint, it is pleaded:
“1. That the Plaintiff is the owner and landlord of a piece of la
The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to possession of leased property and the computation of mesne profits. The judgment emphasizes the need for the suit property to....
Point of Law : Court cannot go beyond the decree and has to execute the decree as it is and the legality or validity of the decree cannot be the subject matter
The judgment establishes the principle that disputes over ownership must be substantiated with evidence, and mesne profits can be calculated based on the property's potential. Interest on mesne profi....
The Executing Court must execute decrees as per their terms without questioning merits or introducing new factual disputes.
The judgment establishes that continuous possession and proper documentation can affirm ownership, while claims of adverse possession require clear evidence and specific pleading.
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
