Public Sector Oil Companies who have entered into license agreements with their dealers and inducted them in possession of the leased land, buildings and equipment to run retail outlets would come within the meaning of Section 2(4)(ii)(a) and could maintain an application under Section 9 of the Chennai City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921.

D. Murugesan, J.

1. Whether the Public Sector Oil Companies who have entered into license agreements with their dealers and inducted them in possession of the leased land, buildings and equipment to run retail outlets would come within the meaning of Section 2(4)(ii)(a) and could maintain an application under Section 9 of the Chennai City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 is the core question to be decided in these batch of cases pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its judgment dated 03.12.2009 in Civil Appeal Nos.5903/2006, 1257/2007, 1925/2007 and 708/2008.

2. The claim made by the oil Companies invoking the provisions of Chennai City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 [hereinafter referred to as 'City Tenants Protection Act'] to purchase the land in their legal possession and licensed to the dealers, came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in C.A.No.5903/2006 etc. batch. The Supreme Court rejected the claim made by the oil Companies under Section 2(4)(ii)(b) of the City Tenants' Protection Act on the ground that the oil Companies were not in actual physical possession. However, the Supreme Court was of the view that their claim should be considered under Section 2(4)(ii)(a) of the Act. Accordingly, the matter was remanded to this Court to render a finding. The operative portion of the remand order reads thus :-

"3. ... to record a finding on the question whether the appellant is covered by Section 2 (4)(i) and sub-clause (a) of Section 2(4)(ii) of the Act and is entitled to the benefits of Section 9(1). Needless to mention, the Division Bench of the High Court shall decide the said question in accordance with law and uninfluenced by any observation made by us in this order except our finding about clause (b) of Section 2(4). We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion of our own on other issues".

3. Factual matrix of the respective civil miscellaneous appeals/original side appeal/revision are as follows:

C.M.A.No.2797/2006 :- M/s.Caltex Oil Refining India Ltd. entered into a lease agreement with the owner of the premises bearing Door No.85, Old No.15/18, Sir Thiyagaraja Road, Chennai 600 017, for the purpose of putting up a petroleum outlet. The lease agreement was executed on 22.06.1959. The lease was initially for a period of five years with effect from 01.05.1959 and it was later renewed periodically up to 30.04.1979. The lessee after constructing a building, canopy and other facilities, opened the outlet. Caltex Oil Refining India Ltd. was taken over by the Government of India and it was later transferred to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., [hereinafter referred to as HPCL]. The landlord issued a lawyer's notice dated 28.04.1982, calling upon HPCL to vacate and deliver possession besides claiming damages from 01.05.1979. This was followed by a civil suit in C.S.No.598/1983 filed by the landlord praying for a decree for recovery of possession. In the said suit, HPCL filed an application bearing No.3891/1984 under Section 9 of the City Tenants' Protection Act for a direction to the landlord to sell the suit property to them. The application was contested by the landlord. The matter was later transferred to the IV Additional Fast Track Court and the suit was registered as O.S.No.4570/1997. The interlocutory application filed by HPCL was renumbered as I.A.No.43/2005. In the meantime, the property was purchased by the present owner from the original plaintiff. The application submitted by HPCL under Section 9 of the City Tenants' Protection Act was dismissed by the lower Court as per order dated 12.07.2006. The said order was challenged before the High Court in C.M.A.No.2797/2006. This Court as per Judgment and Decree dated 24.11.2006, dismissed the appeal by confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court. The Special Leave petition filed by the Corporation was taken up by the Supreme Court along with similar other matters and ultimately, the order of this Court w