A LESSEE OF A REGISTERED VEHICLE CAN BE CONSIDERED AN "OWNER" UNDER SECTION 2(30) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AND IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN HDFC BANK LTD. V. RESHMA & ORS. REGARDING THE INTERPRETATION OF "OWNER".

Biswanath Somadder, J.

1. The only question that falls for consideration in the facts and circumstances of the instant case is whether the petitioner - who claims to be a leaseholder of a registered vehicle (Bus) which operates on an Inter-State route between Kolkata (Hastings) and Chatra (Jharkhand) - can get benefit from the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of HDFC Bank Limited v. Reshma & Ors., reported in (2015) 3 SCC 679 with regard to its interpretation of the statutory definition "owner" as stated in section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. In the facts of the instant case, it is noticed that the vehicle-in-question, being vehicle No. WB-15A-3920, is registered in the name of one Jiwan Gope. Jiwan Gope entered into a lease agreement with the writ petitioner on 20th June, 2016, for a period of five years to enable the writ petitioner (being the lessee), to ply the vehicle-in-question in the Inter-State route as described hereinbefore. Based on such lease agreement, the petitioner approached the concerned authority, namely, the State Transport Authority, West Bengal, for renewal of the permanent stage carriage permit for the purpose of plying the same vehicle in the Inter-State route.

3. According to the learned advocate for the petitioner, the concerned authority has withheld the application for renewal of permit on the ground that the existing vehicle-in-question was procured by the writ petitioner by way of a lease agreement and the petitioner is not the lawful registered owner of the existing vehicle. It is in such context that the learned advocate for the petitioner referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of HDFC Bank Limited v. Reshma & Ors., reported in (2015) 3 SCC 679 (paragraph 8) with regard to its interpretation of the statutory definition "owner", as stated in section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

4. On the other hand, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State has referred to another judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Industrial Credit and Development Syndicate Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore & Anr. reported in (2013) 3 SCC 541. He has specifically referred to paragraphs 28.1 and 28.2 of the said judgment.

5. In the present case, this Court is concerned with the present status of the writ petitioner, who, admittedly, is a leaseholder in respect of a vehicle registered in the name of Jiwan Gope. The Supreme Court in HDFC Bank Limited (supra) has elaborately defined the word "owner" as stated in section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 2(30) of the said Act reads as follows:

"2(30). 'owner' means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement."

6. It is evident from the statutory definition of the term "owner" that it also includes a person in possession of a vehicle covered under an agreement of lease. The Supreme Court, in Industrial Credit and Development Syndicate Limited (supra) in paragraph 28.1 has stated as follows:

"28.1. Section 2(30) is a deeming provision that creates a legal fiction of ownership in favour of the lessee only for the purpose of the MV Act. It defines ownership for the subsequent provisions of the MV Act, not for the purpose of law in general. It serves more as a guide to what the terms in the MV Act mean. Therefore, if the MV Act at any point uses the term "owner" in any section, it means the one in whose name the vehicle is registered and in the case of a lease agreement, the lessee. That is all. It is not a statement of law on ownership in general. Perhaps, the repository of a general statement of law on ownership may be the Sale of Goods Act;"

7. The above observation of the Supreme Co