The court held that disputes related to lease tenure interpretation require detailed examination in civil courts and are not suitable for resolution under writ jurisdiction.

ORDER :

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.

This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the continued occupation and retention of physical possession of petition schedule property admeasuring 2500 square yards in Survey No. 101/A/6/1/A situated at Katedhan Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District by Respondents 2 and 3, pursuant to a registered Lease Deed dated 21.03.2005, despite expiry of lease period by efflux of time on 21.03.2025.

2. The grievance of Petitioner is that even after issuance of repeated representations and legal notices dated 24.01.2024, 05.09.2024, 23.12.2024 and a further representation dated 11.03.2025, Respondent – Indian Oil Corporation failed to vacate the leased premises, failed to remove its movable installations and continues to occupy the property unlawfully, thereby depriving Petitioner of his right to property guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution.

2.1. Petitioner contends that he is the absolute owner of the petition schedule property having lawfully acquired the same under a registered sale deed bearing Document No.5161 of 2003 and his name was mutated in the revenue records and other relevant records maintained by the competent authorities, and that he has been in peaceful ownership and enjoyment of the said property. In his capacity as owner, he executed a registered Lease Deed dated 21.03.2005 in favour of IBP Company Limited, a Government of India undertaking, leasing out the said land for the specific purpose of establishing, erecting, and operating a petrol and high speed diesel retail outlet, servicing and lubricating station, and for storage and use of petroleum products under the name and style of "GYS Reddy Filling Station." The lease included permission to install canopies, underground tanks, dispensing units, plant and machinery, and other movable installations necessary for the said commercial activity.

2.2. It is the specific and emphatic case of Petitioner that under the terms and recitals of the registered Lease Deed, lease tenure was expressly fixed for a period of 20 years commencing from 21.03.2005 and expiring by efflux of time on 21.03.2025. The Lease Deed provided only an option for renewal for a further period of five years, subject to mutual consent and agreement of both the parties, and that such renewal was neither automatic nor unilateral. According to Petitioner, renewal clause was entirely dependent upon the willingness and consent of the lessor, and the lessee had no vested or enforceable right to claim extension as a matter of course.

2.3. It is asserted that petitioner has unequivocally expressed his unwillingness to renew or extend the lease beyond the agreed period of 20 years and that he has, well in advance of the expiry of the lease, issued repeated representations and legal notices calling upon the lessee to vacate the leased premises and hand over peaceful physical possession upon expiry of lease term. Petitioner issued notices dated 24.01.2024, 05.09.2024 and 23.12 2024, followed by representation dated 11.03.2025 and a statutory notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, clearly communicating his intention not to renew the lease and demanding surrender of possession. IBP Company Limited was subsequently merged with and taken over by Indian Oil Corporation Limited, a Government of India undertaking, and that Respondents 2 and 3 stepped into the shoes of the original lessee and continued operations under the same lease and on the same terms and conditions. Such merger or takeover does not in any