SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Mad) 3313

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. MOHAN RAM
Malini Parthasarathy - Appellant
Versus
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. - Respondents
C.M.A. (NPD) No.299 of 2003 & C.M.P. No.1381 of 2006
Decided On : 04 December 2006

Appearing Advocates: For the Appellant:Krishna Srinivasan for Ramasubramanian Associates Advocate. For the Respondent:O.R. Santhanakrishnan, Advocate.

Only a tenant in actual physical possession of the demised land can file application under Section 9.

Headnote:Tenancy---Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act (3 of 1922), Sections 2 (4)(ii)(b) and 9 -Only a tenant in actual physical possession of the demised land can file application under Section 9-HPCL not in actual physical possession-Application filed by it under Section 9 is not maintainable- Order of Trial Court quashed.

Judgment :-

1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 31.12,2002 passed In an Application filed under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in I.A. No.2064 of 2000 in O.S. No.5987 of 1997 on the file of the Second Additional City Civil Judge, Madras, the respondent/plaintiff therein has filed the above Appeal under Section 9-A of the Act.

2. The short facts of the case as pleaded by the respondent are as follows:

The predecessors in-interest or the respondent herein namely ESSO Eastern Inc. became a tenant under the appellant herein in respect of an extent of land measuring 1187.3 sq. mts. situated at St. George's Cathetral Road, Madras under a lease deed, dated 11.07.1972, for a period of 10 years commencing from 01.07.1972 for the purpose of running a petrol bunk. In pursuance thereof ESSO Eastern Inc. put up a super-structure over the said land for the purposes of running a petrol bunk. Subsequently by an Act of Parliament all rights, title and interest of ESSO Eastern Inc. in relation to its undertakings in India were transferred to and vested in the Central Government with effect from 13.3.1974. Thereafter under a notification issued by the Central Government the rights, liabilities and interest of ESSO Eastern Inc. vested in ESSO Standard Refining Company of India Limited, a Government company with effect from 15.3.1974 and subsequently the name of ESSO Standard Refining Company of India Limited was changed to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, the respondent herein. The lease period expired on 01.12.1982 and thereafter the lease was not extended beyond 01.12.1982, however the appellant though initially refused to receive the rent, later received the same under protest without prejudice to their, claim and after issuing the Statutory Notice filed a Suit in C.S. No.856 of 1993 before the High Court, Madras on its Original Civil Jurisdiction demanding the appellant to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit property. The respondent filed Application No.3352 of 1995 in the said suit under Section 9 of the Act seeking direction against the appellant herein to sell the entire suit land as per Section 9 of the Act at a price to be fixed by the Court by appointing an Advocate Commissioner.. Because of the enlargement of pecuniary jurisdiction, the Suit was transferred to the City Civil Court, Madras and it was renumbered as O.S. No.5987 of 1997. The Application filed under Section 9 of the Act was re-numbered as I.A. No.2064 of 2000.

3. The appellant/land lady contested the Application by filing a detailed counter affidavit by inter alia contending as follows:

The respondent is not entitled to protection under the Act as much as the respondent is not in physical possession of the property; one M/s. Bhandari Agencies is in physical possession of the suit property and when the respondent is not in physical possession, it is not entitled to invoke the benefits of the Act and it was further contended that the respondent is not entitled to the total extent of the land as claimed by it. The appellant subsequently pleaded that as the respondent is not in continuous physical possession of the suit land and is not a tenant within the meaning of Section 2(4)(ii)(b) of the Act the respondent is not entitled to purchase the suit land.

4. Before the Court below, on the side of the respondent, one Thiru M. Selvakumar, Senior Regional Manager of the respondent was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P-1 to P-21 were marked. On the side of the appellant herein no oral evidence was let in but Exs.R-1 to R-10 were marked. The Court below on a consideration of the evidence on record allowed the Application holding that the respondent is entitled to purchase the entire property and being aggrieved by that the above Appeal has been filed by the appellant.

5. Heard both.

6. On a perusal of the pleadings in the case it is seen that the claim of the respondent that ESSO Eastern Inc. viz., the




















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top