The main legal point established is that a tenant is not entitled to retain possession without renewal of the lease, and the duty of the Explosives Department to consider the right of the licensee before renewing the explosive licence.

(Sathish K. Agnihotri, J. & K.K. Sasidharan, J.)

1. These two writ appeals are directed against the order, dated 24, March, 2011 in W.P.No.2015 of 2008 whereby and whereunder, the learned Single Judge was pleased to direct M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., appellant in W.A. No. 657 of 2011 to hand over the leasehold premises to the first respondent along with a consequential direction to the Chief Controller of Explosives and Commissioner of Police to pass appropriate orders for cancellation of Explosive licence and 'no objection certificate' in accordance with Rule 152 of The Petroleum Rules, 2002.

2. Since there are two intra Court appeals challenging the very same order, the background facts as found in W.A.No.657 of 2011 are taken up to narrate the litigative history.

The facts:

W.A.No.657 of 2011:

3. The appellant is a Government of India Undertaking engaged in the business of petroleum products. The property which is the subject matter of the writ petition was taken on lease by the appellant vide lease agreement, dated 16.4.1955. The lease was initially for a period of 10 years commencing from 1.5.1955 with a provision for renewal. The lease executed by Thiru S.V. Ramakrishnan was in favour of Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India Ltd. The Government of India enacted Act 2 of 1976 for the purpose of taking over M/s.Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India Ltd. By virtue of the provisions of Act 2 of 1976, rights and obligations of M/s.Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. Of India Ltd. vest with Government of India. The Government of India incorporated M/s.Bharat Petroleum Corporation India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Corporation") in exercise of right conferred under Act 2 of 1976. The Corporation exercised the statutory option and accordingly, the lease was statutorily renewed. The property was later purchased by Mrs.Rajabu Fathima Bhuhari and Bhuhari and they have been receiving the rent from Corporation.

4. While the matters stood thus, the first respondent filed a writ petition in W.P.No.2015 of 2008 for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the statutory authorities to cancel the No Objection Certificate and Explosive Licence issued to the Corporation to run the Petroleum outlet and to stop carrying on business in the said premises and to hand over vacant possession of land.

5. The Corporation was arrayed as first respondent in W.P.No.2015 of 2008. The Corporation filed a detailed counter affidavit in answer to the contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The Corporation had narrated the entire background facts including the statutory renewal of lease. The Corporation took a specific stand that they are entitled to the statutory protection under the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 and as such the very writ petition is not maintainable.

6. During the currency of the writ petition, the appellant in W.A.No.630 of 2011 filed an application to implead them as respondents 5 to 9 in the said writ petition. The application was allowed.

7. The respondents 5 to 9, who are the appellants in W.A. No. 630 of 2011 filed a detailed counter affidavit in the writ petition indicating that the first respondent is neither the owner of the property nor landlord of the premises and as such the writ petition at his instance is not maintainable for eviction.

8. According to the respondents 5 to 9, the connected proceedings are pending before the Executing Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thiru S.V.Ramakrishnan executed a Will, dated 15.7.1970 bequeathing all his properties in favour of the eighth respondent. The eighth respondent has already filed O.P.No.367 of 2008 for probate of Will which was later converted as T.O.S.No.3 of 2008 and the proceedings are still pending. In short, the respondents 5 to 9 challenged the very right claimed by the first respondent to file a writ petition with a prayer to evict the lessee.

The order under challen