SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 72460

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
Shaik Abubakar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
WP 22224/2025



THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.22224 OF 2025

ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents Nos.1 to 3 in not vacating the retail outlet site situated in the premises bearing House Nos.2-6- 201 and 2-6-292, CVRN Road, Makarampura locality, Karimnagar District, despite expiry of lease on 03.06.2024, as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioners claim to be the owners and lessors of the subject property and state that the lease entered into with respondents-Indian Oil Corporation Limited(IOCL) for a period of 20 years has expired and that they have expressed their unwillingness to renew the lease. Despite this, the respondents- IOCL are continuing in possession and pressuring the petitioners for an extension of the lease. The petitioners further rely upon the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in W.P. No. 31174 of 2024, dated 02.07.2025, wherein, in similar circumstances, this Court directed IOCL to vacate the premises within a stipulated period.

3. On the other hand, the respondents contended that they have made substantial investments in the subject property to the tune of Rs.23,50,000/- and are willing to renew the lease on mutually agreed terms. They also state that lease rentals are being paid, and that the refusal of the petitioners to negotiate the renewal has caused hardship to the public due to closure of the facility. The respondents further stated that the facts of this case differ from those in W.P.No.31174 of 2024, and that the two cases are not similar in nature.

4. This Court having considered the submissions of both sides, is of the view that it is not in dispute that the original lease period has expired and there is also no binding obligation for automatic renewal. In W.P.No.31174 of 2024, this Court, in similar facts, held that continued possession by IOCL without renewal on agreed terms cannot be sustained and directed vacation of the premises.

5. Following the ratio laid down in W.P. No. 31174 of 2024, this Court is of the view that the respondents-IOCL cannot unilaterally continue in possession after expiry of the lease, particularly when the petitioners have expressly refused renewal.

6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed directing the respondents-IOCL to vacate and handover peaceful possession of the subject premises to the petitioners within a period of three (3)

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. ___________________________ NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA,J Date:20.08.2025 myk

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top