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

1999 Supreme(Mad) 455

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE Y. VENKATACHALAM
M. Rose, and Others - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. and Others - Respondents
W. P. No. 17945 of 1991
Decided On : 23 April 1999

Appearing Advocates:P. S. Raman, O. Thangavelu For M/s. King, Faridge, Advocates.

The renewal of a lease under Section 7(3) of Act 17 of 1977 is subject to the need of the Central Government and cannot be arbitrary or unjust.

Headnote:

PETITION - LEASE RENEWAL - SECTION 7(3) OF ACT 17 OF 1977 - INTERPRETATION - PUBLIC INTEREST - NEED OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT - PRE-EMPTIVE RIGHT OF PURCHASE - ARBITRARY EXERCISE OF POWER - WRIT PETITION - QUASHING OF COMMUNICATION.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, daughters of a retired District Judge, purchased a property with a 20-year lease in favor of Caltex (India) Ltd. After the takeover of Caltex by the Government, the lease was transferred to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL), the first respondent. HPCL invoked Section 7(3) of Act 17 of 1977 to renew the lease for another 20 years at the same rent of Rs. 700/- per month, despite the petitioners' willingness to sell the property at market value. The petitioners challenged the renewal order as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of their rights.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the renewal of the lease under Section 7(3) was subject to the need of the Central Government and that the respondents failed to demonstrate such a need. The Court also noted that the respondents had a pre-emptive right to purchase the property, which they did not exercise, and that the renewal of the lease at a meager rent was unjust and inequitable. The Court further held that the renewal order was arbitrary and illegal as it deprived the petitioners of their valuable property rights without any public interest.

Issues: 1. Whether the renewal of the lease under Section 7(3) of Act 17 of 1977 was valid and justified. 2. Whether the respondents had a need for the continued lease of the property. 3. Whether the renewal of the lease at a meager rent was unjust and inequitable. 4. Whether the renewal order was arbitrary and illegal.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted Section 7(3) of Act 17 of 1977 as requiring the Central Government to demonstrate a need for the renewal of the lease. 2. The Court found that the respondents failed to establish such a need, as there were numerous other petrol pumps in the vicinity and the property was not essential for the respondents' business. 3. The Court held that the renewal of the lease at a meager rent was unjust and inequitable, as it deprived the petitioners of the fair value of their property. 4. The Court concluded that the renewal order was arbitrary and illegal, as it was not based on any rational or正当 legitimate purpose and violated the petitioners' property rights.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the communication of the respondents renewing the lease.

Judgment :-

The Order of the Court was as follows :

Invoking Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in their order in PAS/SSK/LEG dated 21-8-91 and to quash the same.

2. In support of the writ petition, their mother and power agent has filed an affidavit wherein she has narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow their writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the respondents separate counter affidavits have been filed rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them one after the other and ultimately they requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition for want of merits.

3. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. I have also perused the contents of the affidavit and the counter affidavits together with all other relevant material documents available on record in the form of typed set of papers. I have also taken into consideration the various aspects and points discussed and raised by the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties.

4. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the only point that arises for consideration herein, as to whether there are any valid grounds to allow this writ petition or not.

5. The short facts of the case of the petitioners, as seen from the affidavit are as follows :

The petitioners herein are the daughters of one Mr. Naxim A. Lobo, a retired District Judge and he purchased a property of approximately 3 grounds situated at the junction of Ponnamallee High road and New Avadi Road from their family friend, and Mrs. Padmini Cynthra Mukherji by a Deed of Sale dated 9-7-1993. His vendor had leased out the said property to M/s. Caltex (India) Ltd., by an indenture of lease dated 15-2-1972 for a period of 20 years. The Caltex (India) Ltd., was carrying on through its undertaking in India the business of marketing and distributing petroleum products, Act No. 17/1977 was enacted on 23-1-1977 but the same was given retrospective effect from 30-12-1976. By Section 3 of the Act, all the shares in the capital of Caltex Oil Refining stood transferred to and vested in the Central Government from 30-12-1976. The Caltex Oil Refining thus became a Government company. Section 5 of the Act had also the effect of transferring and vesting in the Central Government with effect from 30-12-76 the right, title and interest of Caltex (India) in relation to its undertakings. In India, the effect of vesting of the undertaking of Caltex (India) in the Central Government is dealt with in Sections 6 and 7. Section 7 made it clear that the rights vested in the Central Government including the right under any lease. Power was also been conferred on the Central Government to renew or continue a lease on the same terms and conditions by sub-section (3) of Section 7. Section 9 of the Act conferred power on the Central Government, to direct vesting of the undertakings of the Caltex (India) in Government company. Thereafter by virtue of an order of the Company Law Board, the undertaking of Caltex Oil Refining stood transferred to and vested in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., the first respondent herein. After the purchase of the above referred property, by the petitioners herein and the notification of the 1978 order, the first respondent herein started atoning the monthly rentals of Rs. # 700/- per month. # to the petitioners herein.

6. As per the original lease deed dated 15-12-1972, the lease in favour of the first respondent herein was to terminate on 31-12-1991 and there were no covenants giving right of renewal to the lessee. However, under Clause 4(f) of the lease deed, the lessee was given a pre-emptive right to purchase the demised premises at the same price as any bona fide offer which may be received by the lessor. That being so



















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