IMPORTANT POINT
A state entity must adhere to the terms of a lease agreement and cannot unilaterally extend the lease without the lessor's consent, particularly when the lease explicitly outlines the conditions for possession after expiration.

ORDER :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

The Indian Oil Corporation Limited (in short, ‘IOCL’) seeks to challenge the direction issued by the writ Court to handover peaceful possession of the subject land to the respondent no.1 within six weeks.

2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.44/2024 was filed by respondent no. 1 who is the lessor seeking a direction upon the IOCL and its Regional Manager to vacate the land comprised under khasra no. 260 at village Shivbari in the Tehsil and District of Bikaner. According to the lessor, on expiry of the period of nineteen years and seven months under the lease agreement dated 26th April 2004 the IOCL was required to handover peaceful possession of the subject property to him. The writ Court referred to clause (j) of the lease agreement and also took note of the pendency of the civil suit filed by the IOCL and came to a conclusion that the IOCL was under an obligation to handover peaceful possession of the subject land to the writ petitioner.

3. The writ Court considered the rival stand taken by the parties and held as under:-

“12. As per the terms and conditions of the contract particularly Clause (j) after the expiry of a period of nineteen years and seven months, the petitioner is entitled to take back the possession of the leased out area. For brevity, Clause J of the lease agreement reads as under :-

“(j) PROVIDED ALWAYS AND IT IS AGREED AND DECLARED that the expiration of the said term of 19 years 8 months, this lease will be automatically and without any further act of the parties hereto be renewed upto ____from the expiration of last mentioned term give to the Lessors one calendar month’s previous notice of their intention not to take any renewed lease”.

13. The argument of learned counsel for the respondent that the Corporation has further sub leased the property in question to Sumit Petroleum for operation of the petrol pump and the same is being run by Sumit Petroleum and, therefore, Sumit Petroleum is a necessary party is noted to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner has neither authorized nor he has written any clause in the lease agreement for running the petrol pump by Sumit Petroleum and, therefore, the lis between the petitioner and the respondent-Corporation is governed by the terms and conditions agreed upon between them vide lease deed dated 26.04.2004. Since the petitioner is not concerned with the sub lease of the area in question by Indian Oil Corporation to Sumit Petroleum, thus, he is not a necessary party.

14. It is also informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the dealership agreement between Sumit Petroleum and the Corporation has also come to an end five years prior to the filing of the present writ petition and the same has not been renewed so far, therefore, looked at from that angle also, the impleadment of Sumit Petroleum in the present proceedings will not make any difference in the present case.

15. Lastly, the pendency of the suit filed by the respondent-Corporation is also having no bearing in the present proceedings as the petitioner has filed this writ petition only on the ground that as per the lease agreement after the expiry of period of nineteen years and seven months, the respondent-Corporation is required to hand over the peaceful possession of the leased out area to the petitioner and since the same has not been handed over, therefore, the writ proceedings have been undertaken by the petitioner. The undisputed facts demonstrate that after expiry of nineteen years and seven months, as per the lease agreement dated 26.04.2004, the period has not been extended, therefore, the respondent-Corporation is under an obligation to hand over the peaceful possession of the land in question to the petitioner.

16. In view of the discussions made above, the present writ petition merits acceptance and the same is allowed. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 – Indian Oil Corporation Ltd is directed to hand over the peaceful possession of the land in question to the petitio