Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2007 Supreme(Mad) 1958

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
R. Ravikrishnan, S/o K.V. Ram, Chennai
Versus
Bharat Petroleum Corporation, rep. by its Territory Manager (Retail) and another
A. No.3788 of 2006, A. No.476 of 2007 and O.A. No.710 of 2006 in C.S. No.687 of 2006
Decided On : 02-07-2007

Advocates:
Mr. Satish Parasaran, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. O.R. Santhana Krishnana, Advocate for 1st Respondent.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that actual physical possession is essential for claiming the benefits under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act, 1921.

Headnote:
Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act - Lease Renewal - Possession Dispute - [O.A. No.710 of 2006 and A. No.3788 of 2006] - [Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act, 1921] - [Section 9, Section 2(4)] - The court discussed the lease renewal under the Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act, 1921 and the requirement of actual physical possession for claiming benefits under Section 9. The court analyzed the definition of 'Tenant' and the necessity of physical possession as per legal precedents and the Indian Easements Act, 1882. The court concluded that the first defendant was not entitled to the benefits of Section 9 due to the second defendant's actual physical possession of the property.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from altering the superstructure or constructing further on the suit property and an interim direction for damages for use and occupation. The first defendant filed an application under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act, 1921, for a direction to sell the suit land.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the first defendant was not entitled to the benefits of Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act, 1921, due to the second defendant's actual physical possession of the property. The court also directed the defendants to deposit a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month to the credit of the Suit with effect from July 2007 onwards.
Issues: The issues involved the lease renewal, possession dispute, and the entitlement to benefits under the Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act, 1921.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the actual physical possession is a sine quo non for claiming the benefits of Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act, 1921, based on legal precedents and the Indian Easements Act, 1882.
Final Decision: The Application A. No.476 of 2007 filed by the first defendant was dismissed, and the court directed the defendants to deposit a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month to the credit of the Suit with effect from July 2007 onwards.

Judgment :

1. The Applications in O.A. No.710 of 2006 and A. No.3788 of 2006 have been filed by the plaintiff seeking inter alia (i) an interim order of injunction restraining the defendants from altering the superstructure or putting up any further construction in the suit property, and (ii) an interim direction, directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards damages for use and occupation of the suit property, pending disposal of the Suit for recovery of possession and damages for use and occupation. The Application A. No.476 of 2007 has been filed by the first defendant in the Suit under Section 9 of the Madra s City Tenants’ Protection Act, 1921, for a direction to the plaintiff to sell the suit land to them at a price to be fixed by this Court by appointing an Advocate Commissioner.

2. Heard Mr. Satish Parasaran, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, who is the applicant in O.A. No.710 of 2006 and A. No.3788 of 2006 and Mr. O.R. Santhanakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the first defendant, who is the applicant in A. No.476 of 2007.

3. The facts which are not in dispute are as follows:

.(a) The plaintiff’s mother was the absolute owner of a larger extent of land of which the suit schedule property was a part. After dividing into two portions, the mother of the plaintiff leased out the suit schedule property to Burmah-Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited, under a Deed of Lease dated 3. 1962. The said Lease Deed has been filed as document No.3 along with the plaint. Clause (1) of the Lease Deed fixed the term of lease as 20 years and the yearly rent as Rs.6,000/-.

(b) Clause 3(iii) of the Lease Deed dated 3. 1962 provided for the renewal of the lease for a further period of 20 years, at the option of the Lessee subject to the conditions stipulated therein.

.(c) The aforesaid Lessee was nationalised by Central Act 2 of 1976, and all the assets of the Lessee vested with the Central Government. Subsequently, the Lessee underwent a transformation twice, before eventually becoming Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited, the first defendant in the Suit.

.(d) In exercise of the power conferred under Sections 5(2) and 7(3) of the Central Act 2 of 1976, the first defendant sought statutory renewal of the lease, by their letter dated 13. 1981 for a further term of 20 years with effect from 3. 1982. The renewal was on the same yearly rent of Rs.6,000/-.

.(e) The lease got renewed statutorily and the renewed period of lease was to come to an end on 22. 2002.

.(f) Even before the renewed term of lease came to an end, the plaintiff’s mother attempted to terminate the lease and demanded possession by 22. 2000, but it was not agreed to by the first defendant. Again by a letter dated 1. 2002, followed by another letter dated 11. 2002, the plaintiff’s mother appears to have demanded vacant possession of the land by 22. 2002. However, the first defendant sought further renewal of the lease.

.(g) The plaintiff’s mother then executed a Deed of Settlement dated 12. 2003 registered as document No.367 of 2003 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar of Mylapore, settling the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. After settlement, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 16. 2006 to both the defendants, calling upon them to surrender possession of the suit property within three months. The first defendant sent a reply, refusing to concede the demand, forcing the plaintiff to come up wit h the present Suit for recovery of possession and also for damages for use and occupation.

4. Along with the Suit, the plaintiff filed two Applications viz ., A. No.710 of 2006, for restraining the defendants from altering the superstructure or putting up any further construction in the suit property and A. No.3788 of 2006 for an interim direction to the respondents to pay Rs.1,50,000/- per month for their use and occupation of the suit property.

5. After entering appearance in the Suit, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis