2020 Supreme(Mad) 121

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
National Company, Represented by its Managing Director, Dr. Arun A Raja - Appellant
Versus
Joint Chief Controller of Explosives Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Petroleum & Explosives Safety Organization (PESO), (Formerly Department of Explosives), Egmore, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P. Nos. 31055 of 2012 & 24058 of 2019 & M.P. No. 2 of 2012 & W.M.P. No. 23884 of 2019
Decided On : 10-03-2020

A tenant cannot claim any relief under the City Tenants Protection Act if they are not in lawful possession.

Headnote:

PETROLEUM RULES, 2002 - RULES 148(5), 150(1), 152(1) - CITY TENANTS PROTECTION ACT - SECTION 3, 9 - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - RENEWAL OF LICENSE - RIGHT TO SITE - CANCELLATION OF NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE - JURISDICTION OF COURT - PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING - DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF RENT - TRESPASSER - LAND GRABBER - WRIT OF CERTIORARI - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - COSTS.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a company, owned a property in Chennai which was leased to the second respondent, a public sector undertaking, for running a petrol/diesel outlet. The lease was initially for 20 years from 1960 and was renewed for another 20 years till 1999. It was further renewed for a period of 11 years from 01.01.1999 till 31.12.2009. After 31.12.2009, there was no renewal of the lease or permission to the second respondent to continue to be in occupation. The petitioner sent several notices to the second respondent to vacate the property, but the second respondent did not heed to the notices. The petitioner also applied to the Fire and Rescue Services Department and the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, to cancel the license and No Objection Certificate issued to the second respondent, respectively, but no action was taken. The petitioner then filed two writ petitions, one for a writ of certiorari to quash the renewal of license granted to the second respondent and a consequential mandamus to direct the second respondent to vacate the property, and the other for a writ of mandamus to direct the Commissioner of Police to cancel the No Objection Certificate issued to the second respondent.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the second respondent was a trespasser and land grabber with no right to the site and that the respondents had lost any and every right to claim any right or title or interest over the property. The court further held that the first respondent had no obligation to examine whether the lessee had a right to continue to be in possession and that the second respondent could not claim 'deemed' renewal of license under Rule 148(5) of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, since the writ petition was pending before the court. The court also held that the second respondent could not claim any relief under the City Tenants Protection Act as they were not in lawful possession and that the No Objection Certificate issued to the second respondent in 1960 had not been renewed at any point of time after 1960.

Issues: 1. Whether the writ petitions were maintainable. 2. Whether the second respondent had a right to the site. 3. Whether the first respondent had the obligation to examine whether the lessee had a right to continue to be in possession. 4. Whether the second respondent could claim 'deemed' renewal of license under Rule 148(5) of the Petroleum Rules, 2002. 5. Whether the second respondent could claim any relief under the City Tenants Protection Act. 6. Whether the No Objection Certificate issued to the second respondent in 1960 had been renewed at any point of time after 1960.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. A writ petition is maintainable even if the matter arises out of a contractual obligation. 2. The right to site referred to in Rule 153(1) of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, is the right to the site on which the petroleum is stored and not the right for storing petroleum on the site. 3. The licensing authority has no obligation to examine whether the lessee has a right to continue to be in possession. 4. There can be no 'deemed' renewal of license under Rule 148(5) of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, if the writ petition is pending before the court. 5. A tenant cannot claim any relief under the City Tenants Protection Act if they are not in lawful possession. 6. A No Objection Certificate issued under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, is liable to be cancelled if the licensee has ceased to have any right to use the site for storing petroleum.

Final Decision: The court allowed both the writ petitions and quashed the renewal of license granted to the second respondent. The court also issued a mandamus to the Commissioner of Police to cancel the No Objection Certificate issued to the second respondent. The court further directed the second respondent to pay costs to the Cancer Institute of Adayar, Chennai, the Dean, Stanley Medical College, Chennai, the Dean, Government Royapettah Hospital, Chennai, and the Dean, Government Kilpauk Medical College, Chennai.