Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ANITA SUMANTH, J.
M/s.Sri Gowri and Co., Represented by its Partner M.K.Krishnakumar – Appellant
Versus
The Territory Manager (Retail), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited – Respondent
W.P.No.1382 of 2024 and WMP.No.1412 of 2024
Decided on : 20-06-2024
Writ - Eviction - Article 226 - The court interpreted the applicability of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 and the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921, concluding that the respondent's continued occupation post-lease expiry was unlawful, thus allowing the writ petition for eviction.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a partnership firm, sought a writ of mandamus for the respondent, BPCL, to vacate premises after the lease expired and following the cancellation of necessary licenses. The respondent refused to vacate despite the lease's termination.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's continued occupation was unlawful, as the lease had expired and necessary licenses were cancelled. The writ petition was deemed maintainable despite the respondent's objections regarding jurisdiction.
Issues: Whether the writ petition for eviction was maintainable and whether the respondent was entitled to protection under the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the writ petition was maintainable as the facts did not require complicated investigations, and the respondent was not entitled to protections under the MCTPA due to the timing of the lease agreement.
Result: The writ petition is allowed, directing the respondent to vacate the premises within two months and pay arrears of rent.
ORDER :
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent to hand over physical vacant possession of the premises situated at Survey No.106, 107/1, Parapalayam Village, Tiruppur Taluk, Tiruppur District – 638 601 to the Petitioner within a prescribed time limit.
The petitioner is a partnership firm, owning the property at Survey No.106, 107/1, Parapalayam Village, Tiruppur Taluk, Tiruppur District 638 601 ('property'/'property in question'). In 1996, it had entered into a registered lease agreement with the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL)/respondent for running of a petrol bunk in the premises in question.
2. The Additional District Management and District Revenue Officer (‘DRO’) had issued a No Objection Certificate on 04.07.1997 under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 enabling the operation of a Petroleum Retail Outlet in the premises, and an Explosives licence dated 31.12.2022 was also obtained from the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives. The lease had been for a period of 25 years from 22.06.1998 and upon determination of the lease on 31.07.2022, the respondent had wished to renew the same.
3. The petitioner had been unwilling for such renewal and had sought surrender of the premises from the respondent, but BPCL refused to budge. The petitioner approached the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives and the DRO Tiruppur, on 06.09.2022 seeking cancellation of the Explosives licence and No Objection Certificate citing Rule 152(i) and (ii) and Rule 150 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002. An enquiry had been caused and No Objection Certificate cancelled vide proceedings dated 12.10.2022. This order has become final.
4. WP.No.28896 of 2022 was filed seeking cancellation of the Explosives licence, which had come to be disposed on 18.07.2023. As a consequence, the Explosives licence has also been cancelled by order dated 17.08.2023. This too did not prompt the respondent to vacate the premises. Admittedly, no rent has been paid to the petitioner since 01.08.2022, the date of expiry of the lease.
5. A Civil Suit had been instituted by BPCL in O.S.No.314 of 2022 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruppur seeking, among other reliefs, a declaration that the notice issued by the DRO proposing to cancel the No Objection Certificate was null and void. The reliefs sought in that suit are as follows:
b. Granting permanent injunction restraining the Petitioner herein, their men, agents, representatives and followers from interfering with the leasehold rights of the plaintiff till the plaintiff is evicted through due process of law.
c. For a permanent injunction restraining the DRO from proceeding further pursuant to notice dated 21.09.2022.
d. Awarding cost of the suit.
e. Grant such other reliefs that may be deemed just and fit under the circumstances of the case.'
6. With the order of cancellation dated 12.10.2022, the suit loses all force and is rendered infructuous.
7. Mr.V.B.R.Menon, learned counsel for the petitioner, after narrating the above facts, submits that the respondent is legally prohibited from operating the Petroleum outlet and hence must be asked to vacate forthwith. He relies on a slew of judgments in support of his submissions, being:
(ii) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Devaraj Chordia and others, 2005 (2) CTC 401
(iii) C.Albert Morris v. K.Chandrasekaran and others, (2006) 1 SCC 228
(iv) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. R.Chandramouleeswaran and others, (2020) 11 SCC 718
(v) National Company v. Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Another, (2021) 13 SCC 121
8. Per contra, Mr.A.K.Sriram, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.Anirudh Krishnan, learned counsel for the res
The court established that a writ petition for eviction is maintainable when the facts are straightforward, and public sector undertakings are not above the law regarding lease agreements.
The court affirmed that mere acceptance of rent does not imply lease renewal, allowing eviction under Article 226 when the lease has expired without mutual agreement for renewal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the expiration of a lease, suppression of material facts, and the effect of holding over under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 were central....
A Statutory Corporation, which is a State within meaning of Article 12 of Constitution of India, is not expected to act in blatant disregard to law.
Unauthorized occupation of property without legal authorization constitutes wrongful occupation, and a mere continuation of operations post-lease expiration does not confer rights. The Court retains ....
The continued occupation of leased property by a public body post-expiration is arbitrary and warrants judicial intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The pending proceeding before the Estate Officer was the appropriate forum for adjudication of disputed factual issues.
A license for a petroleum outlet automatically expires with the lease, permitting writ relief against authorities for cancellation without a formal request if substantial grounds exist.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
