Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ARIJIT BANERJEE, APURBA SINHA RAY, JJ.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Others - Appellants
Versus
Sikha Ghosh & Ors. - Respondents
M.A.T. No. 1865 of 2022 With IA CAN 2 of 2022 IA CAN 3 of 2023
Decided On : 14-08-2023
PETROLEUM BUSINESS - LEASE - EVICTION - [APURBA SINHA RAY, ARIJIT BANERJEE, JJ.] - IOCL Vs. SHEFALI GHOSH AND ORS. - [WPA No. 20392 OF 2021] - The writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution can issue appropriate writs in appropriate situations to arrest or remedy palpable injustice caused to any litigant public, and further can direct appropriate relief in favour of that person if he is entitled to the same under law. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court of our country does not approve the plea that the writ court has the power to issue appropriate writs as and when called for even when there are serious factual disputes which need consideration of elaborate evidence. It appears that this is not a fit case where writ court should issue a writ of mandamus directing IOCL to vacate the premises in question without considering the relevant evidence.
Fact of the Case:
IOCL was allowed to run petroleum supply business in the joint property of its lessors. The nature of business of IOCL requires it to arrange for storage of petroleum, dispensing units and other installations in the said joint property of the lessors for the purpose of running the business effectively. Now all on a sudden, the joint lessors decided to partition their joint property, and by a registered deed they partitioned their joint property and as a result, some portions of business installations of IOCL fell in the divided property of one lessor and other installations in the portion of other lessor. Before expiry of the lease period, though IOCL exercised its option under the lease deed for purchasing the property, one lessor refused, but the other lessor was willing to sell her portion in lieu of consideration as per market value.
Finding of the Court:
The writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution can issue appropriate writs in appropriate situations to arrest or remedy palpable injustice caused to any litigant public, and further can direct appropriate relief in favour of that person if he is entitled to the same under law. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court of our country does not approve the plea that the writ court has the power to issue appropriate writs as and when called for even when there are serious factual disputes which need consideration of elaborate evidence. It appears that this is not a fit case where writ court should issue a writ of mandamus directing IOCL to vacate the premises in question without considering the relevant evidence.
Issues: Whether the writ court can issue a writ of mandamus directing IOCL to vacate the premises in question without considering the relevant evidence?
Ratio Decidendi: The writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution can issue appropriate writs in appropriate situations to arrest or remedy palpable injustice caused to any litigant public, and further can direct appropriate relief in favour of that person if he is entitled to the same under law. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court of our country does not approve the plea that the writ court has the power to issue appropriate writs as and when called for even when there are serious factual disputes which need consideration of elaborate evidence. It appears that this is not a fit case where writ court should issue a writ of mandamus directing IOCL to vacate the premises in question without considering the relevant evidence.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment and order passed in WPA No. 20392 of 2021 dated 16.08.2022 by Learned Single Judge is set aside.
JUDGMENT :
Apurba Sinha Ray, J.
1. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 16.08.2022 passed in WPA No. 20392 of 2021 the instant appeal was preferred by the appellant Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (in short ‘IOCL’). The matrix of the factual aspects may be encapsulated as hereunder:-
(b) IOCL started petroleum business therein after appointing dealers for running the said business in the said property. The dealers were the family members of the said owners who granted lease to IOCL.
(c) The said owners/sisters-in-law partitioned the said property by a registered deed of partition in the year 1969 whereby Saila Rani Ghosh got Lot ‘A’ and Lot ‘C’ and Shefali Ghosh got Lot ‘B’ ‘D’ & ‘E’ in their exclusive possession. The petrol pump business in run from both Lot ‘A’ and Lot ‘B’ of the partitioned property.
(d) On the request of the said sisters-in-law, IOCL was paying 50% of the premium as agreed in the lease deed to each of the lessors as aforesaid.
(e) The materials on record show that there was a family settlement by which Shefali Ghosh and her relatives got the petrol pump business running in the aforesaid Lot ‘A’ & Lot ‘B” (though she was not exclusive owner of Lot ‘A’) property, whereas Saila Rani Ghosh and her relatives got the copper business of the family in another property elsewhere.
(f) A few days before expiry of the lease deed, IOCL addressed a letter to both the sisters-in-law exercising its option under lease deed for purchasing the leased property as per relevant condition of the lease deed.
(g) One sister in law namely Saila Rani Ghosh (the exclusive owner of Lot ‘A’) did not accede to such request of IOCL and filed an eviction suit against IOCL for a decree of recovery of possession for her allotted portion i.e. Lot ‘A’ as per partition deed and the Learned Court of first instance decreed the said suit and IOCL was directed to vacate the portion of Saila Rani Ghosh which she obtained by virtue of the partition deed and the said decree was affirmed in the first appeal. IOCL has preferred a second appeal before the Hon’ble High Court which is pending. The other sister in law Shefali Ghosh had also asked IOCL to quit and vacate her portion of property i.e. Lot ‘B’ which she got by virtue of the said partition deed. However, the said Shefali Ghosh did not file any eviction suit against IOCL after expiry of the period of lease and tried to persuade IOCL to purchase her portion of land i.e. Lot ‘B’ at market price which was not accepted by the IOCL till date.
(h) In 2021, Shefali Ghosh’s successors filed a writ application praying for issuance of writ of mandamus directing IOCL to quit and vacate the portion of land comprised in Lot ‘B’ along with other reliefs.
(i) The writ court allowed the prayer of Shefali Ghosh after opining that no complicated questions of fact are involved and also holding that the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution in appropriate cases can issue writ of mandamus directing a statutory corporation to quit and vacate leasehold premises, and accordingly directed IOCL to quit and vacate the portion of land which Shefali Ghosh obtained by virtue of partition deed in the year 1969, by judgment and order dated 16.08.2022 (modified on 05.09.2022).
2. Against the said judgment and order passed by the Learned Single Judge on 16.08.2022 as modified on 05.09.2022 the present appellant filed the instant appeal on the grounds inter alia:-
(b) The Learned Judge has also erred by relying on Judgments (not cited by either party) after the matter was reserved for judgme
The writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution can issue appropriate writs in appropriate situations to arrest or remedy palpable injustice caused to any litigant public, and further can direct....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the expiration of a lease, suppression of material facts, and the effect of holding over under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 were central....
The court affirmed that mere acceptance of rent does not imply lease renewal, allowing eviction under Article 226 when the lease has expired without mutual agreement for renewal.
The continued occupation of leased property by a public body post-expiration is arbitrary and warrants judicial intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Eligibility for dealership depends on submitting all co-owners' lease deeds as per Brochure Clause; a preliminary decree is insufficient without a final decree.
The court emphasized that termination of a dealership must follow due process and that Writ jurisdiction can be invoked when fundamental rights are at stake, despite the existence of alternative reme....
Unauthorized occupation of property without legal authorization constitutes wrongful occupation, and a mere continuation of operations post-lease expiration does not confer rights. The Court retains ....
The court established that a writ petition for eviction is maintainable when the facts are straightforward, and public sector undertakings are not above the law regarding lease agreements.
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
