IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.04.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA C.R.P (PD) No. 2755 of 2023 &

C.M.P.No. 16983 of 2023

1.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, A Government of India Undertaking Having its Registered Office at No.17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai – 400002.

Represented by its Managing Director.

2.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, A Government of India Undertaking Having its Registered Office at Thalamutu Natrajan Building Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600008. ... Petitioners vs.

Saroj Rajanikant ... Respondent Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order made in IA.No.1 of 2022 in OS.No.2314 of 2022 dated 07.06.2023 pending on the file of the XX Additional District and Sessions Court, City Civil Court, Chennai.

For Petitioner : Mr. Mohammed Fayaz Ali For Respondent : Mr. Venkateswaran For Mr. M.Sankar

ORDER

Challenging the dismissal of their application for rejecting the plaint filed in IA.No.1 of 2022 in OS.No.2314 of 2022 on the file of the XX Additional District and Sessions Court, City Civil Court, Chennai, the defendants are the petitioners before this Court. The parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the Trial Court.

2. The plaintiff had filed the suit OS.No.2314 of 2022 claiming damages of a sum of Rs.99,00,000/- together with future interest at 12% per annum. It is the case of the plaintiff that the property bearing Old Door No.95, New Door No.178, Poonamallee High Road, Kilpauk measuring about 4600 Sq.ft., was owned by her father. He had leased out the same to Caltex in the year 1943. By an act of Parliament in India all foreign companies doing business in India were acquired by Central Government and all the assets and liabilities and contracts and other rights were also taken over.

3. Under the said Act Caltex (India) Ltd., was taken over by the Central Government by which all the assets, liabilities contracts, obligations, etc., of the erstwhile Caltex vested with the Central Government by virtue of the statutory provisions. The defendant company had taken over the above assets and the lease was renewed for further period of 20 years commencing from 01.07.1994 on the very same terms and conditions in lease deed dated 16.10.1974. The defendant company had also exercised its automatic right of renewal for 20 years and had become statutory tenant under the plaintiff.

4. The plaintiff would submit that there was no written contract or lease agreement signed by the defendant. After the expiry of the lease period since the defendant have not vacated the premises the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession in CS.No.243 of 1987 before this Court.

5. The defendant had filed written statement and had also taken out an application under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1920 in A.No.5068 of 1988 on the ground that the super structure had been put up by them. The suit was later transferred to the City Civil Court, Chennai when the pecuniary Jurisdiction of this Court had been revised. The suit was assigned a new number OS.No.3416 of 1997. A.No.5068 of 1988 was re-numbered as IA.No.18682 of 2002.

6. The suit came to be dismissed by the Trial Court, namely, XVI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, by Judgement and Decree dated 27.03.2003 and the Section 9 application filed by the defendant was allowed.

7. The plaintiff has challenged the said Judgement and Decree by filing AS.No.511 of 2008 on the file of the IV Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai, against the Judgement and Decree in the suit and CMA.No.75 of 2004 was filed against the order in IA.No.18682 of 2002. The CMA was decided in favour of the plaintiff and consequently AS.No.511 of 2008 came to be dismissed.

8. Thereafter, the plaintiff had filed EP.No.1354 of 2010 for recovery of possession. The Judgement of the Appellate Court was challenged by the defendant in SA.No.555 of 2010, which also came to be dismissed on