Liberty given to landowners to file writ petition to evict the respondent.

1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to deliver possession of the property in T.S.No.301/3 Municipal Ward No. 13, Revenue Ward No. 3 in Erode town Ward B, Block 2, T.S.No.51/2.

2. The petitioners are the owners of the said property of an extent of 14740 Sq.ft. Originally, the said property belongs to their father, who leased out the site to the Burma Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India limited for a period of twenty years from 1.10.1958. The lease came to an end by efflux of time by 30.9.1978. By that time, the Central Government enacted Burma Shell Acquisition of Undertakings in India Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). As per the notification under the Act, the rights of the Burma Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company came to be vested with the first respondent the Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited.

3. As the period of lease expired by efflux of time, the petitioners' father filed a writ petition W.P.No.4730 of 1979 before this Court for the relief of recovery of possession. Pending the said writ petition, the father of the petitioners died and the petitioners herein were brought on record as the legal representatives. In the said writ petition, it was contended that as per Sections 5 and 7 of the Act, there can be only one renewal, and the first respondent herein has failed to pay fair rent and therefore, they are liable to surrender possession. The writ petition was partly allowed by an order dated 28.10.1992 by the learned single Judge directing the Central Government to issue proper directions to the Central Public Works Department to determine the fair and reasonable rent. The first respondent herein preferred a writ appeal in W.A.No.76 of 1993, which was ultimately dismissed on 17.9.1997. Now that the renewal of lease for another twenty years granted to the first respondent came to an end by efflux of time by 30.9.1998, the present' writ petition has been filed for recovery of possession on the ground that the first respondent is not entitled for further renewal and they are liable to surrender possession.

4. The first respondent herein filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioners failed in their earlier attempt i.e. in W.P.No.4730 of 1979 and as such, the present writ petition is not maintainable. Further, in the earlier writ petition, the first respondent herein claimed the benefit of the City Tenants Protection Act and the question was left open giving liberty to the first respondent herein to claim such relief, as and when the petitioners go to the civil Court. Now, by filing this writ petition, it is not open to the petitioners to deprive of such right of the first respondent herein. Hence,, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. The second respondent, who is the distributing agent entrusted with the site, filed a counter affidavit stating that they expressed willingness for the renewal of lease and the petitioners as well as the representative of the first respondent discussed the matter and arrived at an arrangement for the renewal of lease. Hence, now, it is not open to the petitioners to give a go by to such an agreed arrangement and file this writ petition. So far as other contentions are concerned, they are similar to that of the first respondent herein.

6. Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that the original lease was entered into between the petitioners' father and the Burma Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited in the year 1958. The said lease period expired in 1978 and the petitioners' father filed the writ petition in W.P. No.4730 of 1979.In the said writ petition, this Court directed the Central Government to direct the Central Public Works Department to determine the fair rent. So far as the recovery of possession was .concerned, the same has been rejected. The first respondent preferred an appeal in W.A