The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner must seek eviction of the 1st respondent through the appropriate legal channels, and the 1st respondent's conduct in occupying the property without a formal arrangement was unjust.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to deliver the vacant possession of the schedule mentioned property along with the past rental arrears to the petitioner.)

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to hand over the possession of schedule mentioned property along with the past rental arrears.

2. This Writ Petition was originally listed before the learned Single Judge. By an order dated 25.04.2019, the learned Single Judge expressed doubts regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition in the light of the conflicting views. The order of the learned Single Judge reads as under:-

With regard to maintainable of the writ petition, in so far as the relief prayed for in the writ petition, there is conflict of judgment passed by this Court reported in 2001(1) CTC 1 (W.A.No.2302 of 1999, dated 20.10.2000), 2001 (1) CTC 10 (W.P.No.20061 of 1998, dated 2.12.2000), (W.P.No.29312 of 2014), (W.P.No.14883 of 2015, dated 22.01.2018) and an unreported judgment in W.P.No.7432 of 2009, dated 22.10.2009 on the one hand held that writ petition is not maintainable, and the judgment passed by this Court reported in 2005(3) L.W.758 (W.P.No.8258 of 2001, dated 19.7.2005), 2005 (3) L.W.523 (W.P.No.44758 of 2002, dated 21.7.2005), 2011 (1) L.W.146 (W.A.No.1767 of 2003, dated 25.11.2010), 2014 (1) MLJ 385 (W.A.Nos.630 & 657 of 2011, dated 12.12.2013) and unreported judgments passed by this court in W.A.Nos.1796 & 1893 of 2014 dated 29.8.2008, W.P.No.13521 of 2002 dated 4.1.2011, W.A.No.44 of 2000 dated 21.7.2000 and W.A.No.779 of 2008 dated 23.10.2008 on the other hand, writ petition is maintainable.

Therefore, Registry is directed to place this writ petition before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for assigning the writ petition before the appropriate Division Bench, so as to decide the maintainability of the writ petition.

3. Pursuant to the above order, the case was listed for order before the Hon’ble Chief Justice and was thereafter listed before us.

4. The property in question was leased to the 1st respondents’ predecessor for a period of 20 years in the year 1960. Thereafter, it was renewed for another 20 years and finally for another period of 10 years vide a registered lease deed dated 23.04.1999. The said lease period came to an end on 31st December, 2009. On the leased property, the 1st respondent had put up petrol bunk to be operated by its licensor namely the 2nd respondent herein.

5. Before the lease came to an end, the petitioner had issued a notice on 14.08.2008 to the 1st respondent to terminate the lease. Thereafter, on 20.05.2009, the petitioner issued another notice to the 1st respondent to vacate the leased premises.

6. On 16.07.2009, another notice was issued to the respondent reiterating termination of the lease. By letter dated 03.10.2009, the petitioner reiterated their stand and expressed their unwillingness to renew the lease.

7. The petitioner unequivocally informed the 1st respondent that they were no longer interested in renewing the lease and therefore requested the 1st respondent to vacate the property. The respondents however neither vacated the said premises nor took steps to formalize a fresh lease agreement. Instead, the 1st respondent tried to negotiate with the petitioner for an outright purchase of the said property.

8. After negotiations, it appears, an in principle oral agreement was reached between the parties whereby it was agreed that the petitioner would sell the property to the 1st respondent. The petitioner offered to sell the property at Rs.5249.38 per square feet. This was recorded in the minutes of meeting held between them on 20.04.2010. However, the talks remained inconclusive.

9. Though the offer was made by the petitioner as early as 10.08.2010, the 1st respondent did not act further perhaps on account of the nature of transaction invo