A writ petition can be maintainable for seeking eviction of a tenant, even if the matter involves contractual obligations, if the facts do not involve complicated questions needing elaborate investigation.

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:

'a. To declare the notice dated 21.09.2022 issued by the DRO for enquiry to the Plaintiff under Rule 150 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 as null and void.

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:

(i)Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Another v. Dolly Das1 (ii)Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Devaraj Chordia and others2 (iii)C.Albert Morris v. K.Chandrasekaran and others3 (iv)Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v.

R.Chandramouleeswaran and others4 (v)National Company v. Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Another5 8.Per contra, Mr.A.K.Sriram, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.Anirudh Krishnan, learned counsel for the respondent would, at the outset, assail the (1999) 4 SCC 450 2005 (2) CTC 401 (2006) 1 SCC 228 (2020) 11 SCC 718 (2021) 13 SCC 121 maintainability of this writ petition stating that a writ cannot be maintained in support of a prayer for eviction simplicitor. He submit that if this practice were to be permitted, writ Courts would be flooded with similar pleas, whereas, an order of eviction is essentially a matter for the Civil Court to