Kerala High Court
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vs T K Mohammed on 4 August, 2025
W.A.Nos.537 of 2025 1 2025:KER:57318
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
TH
MONDAY, THE 4
DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 13TH SRAVANA,
1947
WA NO. 537 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.12.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.38439 OF 2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2:
1 NDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD I REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIMAN, INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, G-9, ALI YAVAR, JUNG MARG, BANDRA (EASO, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA, PIN - 400051 2 HIEF DIVISIONAL RETAIL MANAGER C INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. , KOZHIKODE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, PMK TOWERS, CIVIL STATION POST, WAYANAD ROAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673030 Y ADV DR.THUSHARA JAMES B SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR) RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & 3RD RESPONDENT: 1 K MOHAMMED T AGED 67 YEARS S/O P V ABDU, FATHIMAS, OPPOSITE PARAL, U P SCHOOL, KOOTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR, PIN - 670643 W.A.Nos.537 of 2025 2 2025:KER:57318 2 .M FOUZIA P AGED NOT KNOWN, W/O T.K MOHAMMED, FATHIMAS, OPP. PARAL U.P, SCHOOL, KOOTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR, PIN - 670643 3 .M BIJU T S/O. MADHAVAN, THQJUS, MATTANNUR P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 673020 RI.S.KRISHNA PRASAD S SRI.GOVIND G.NAIR HIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.07.2025, T THE COURT ON 04.8.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.Nos.537 of 2025 3 2025:KER:57318 JUDGMENT Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J. Heard finally with the consent of both the parties. 2.Thisintra-courtappealunderSection5oftheKeralaHighCourt Act, 1958, assails the judgments dated 04.12.2024 passed in W.P(C)No.38439of2018wherebythelearnedSingleJudgehasallowed the writ petition. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 had filed W.P(C)No.38439 of 2018 concerning a retail outlet of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., located on property leased out by them and operated by the 3rd respondent pursuant to anallotmentmadebytheappellant-IndianOilCorporation. The respondents 1 and 2 are the joint owners of about 35.20 Ares of property in Re-Survey No.104/2 in Kuthuparamba Village in Kannur District.Outoftheaforesaidproperty,respondents1and2leasedout30 centstoM/s.IBPPvt.Ltd.intheyear2003.Thetermoftheleasewasfor 15 years from thedateofcommencementofactivitiesofstorage/saleof petroleum products; ie, from 30.05.2003. The outlet was established in theaforepropertybyM/s.IBPPvt.Ltd.,whichisa"CompanyOwnedand CompanyOperated"(COCO)outletandthemaintenanceandhandlingof W.A.Nos.537 of 2025 4 2025:KER:57318 the dealership were entrusted with the son of respondents 1 and 2. In the meanwhile, the entrustment to their son was cancelled with effect from 01.02.2007. M/s.IBP Pvt. Ltd. came to be merged with the 1st appellant in the year 2007 and thereafter the 1st appellant allotted the dealershiptothe3rdrespondent;viz,Sri.T.M.Biju.Theappellantsserved a notice to respondents 1 and 2 vide communication dated 10.05.2017 informing that theleasedeedwasexpiringon29.05.2018andthesame is required to be renewed. The 1st and 2nd respondents informed the appellantsvideletterdated22.05.2018thattheyarenolongerinterested in renewing the lease deed and therefore, the appellants have to quit, vacate and deliver quiet and peaceful possessionofthepremisesonor before 30.05.2018. It was informedbytheappellantstothe1stand2nd respondents that they were under legitimate expectationthattheycould continueforaminimumof30yearsandonthatbasistheappellantshad investedhugeamountsinthepropertyforestablishingtheretailoutlet.In view of the aforesaid, the 1st and 2nd respondent filed the writ petition seeking direction to quit, vacate and deliver quiet and peaceful possession of the premises covered by Ext.P1 lease deed. W.A.Nos.537 of 2025 5 2025:KER:57318 4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants contendedthatthe1stand2ndrespondentsneversoughtevictionofthe appellants from the retail outlet after expiry of the lease deed and the appellantswereneverdeclaredastrespassersbycompetentCivilCourt, since they continue to pay rent in respect of the premises with the consent of respondents 1 and 2. The learned Single Judge did not consider the fact that the "petroleum and petroleum products" are essential commodities as per Entry 5 of the Schedule appended in the EssentialCommoditiesAct,1955andtherefore,thejudgmentpassedby the learned Single Judge is bad in law. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the major aspect which was not considered by the learned Single Judge is that according to the Transfer of PropertyAct,1882,itlaysdownhowa tenant can be dispossessed. For dispossession from the retail outlet land,thepropercourseistoapproachthefirstcourtofreferencebyfiling a suit for eviction or by following the due process of law, rather than invokingthejurisdictionofthisCourtunderArticle226oftheConstitution of India. Onthesegrounds,thelearnedcounselfortheappellantsprays for setting aside the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. W.A.Nos.537 of 2025 6 2025:KER:57318 6.Percontra,thelearnedcounselappearingfortherespondents1 and 2 vehemently opposed the afore prayer and submitted that the appellant - Corporation cannot compel the 1st and 2nd respondents to renew the lease, sinceaspertheleasedeed,thesamewasonlyfor15 yearsanditexpiredintheyear2018.Thereaftertherewasnorenewalof thelease.Therenthasalsoincreasedconsiderablyinthatareaandthat the appellant Corporation is not paying the rent as per the market rate. Moreover,thereisgreatneedforthepropertytobeutilizedfortheirown purpose. The learned Single Judge has considered each and every aspect of the matter and passed a very detailed judgment.Thelearned Single Judge also considered whether issuing a writ of mandamus directing the appellants to vacate the premises was proper in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the Apex Court, in National Company v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited [2021 (6) KLT OnLine 1139], had considered the very same question with specificreferencetoaproperty held by BPCL (another petroleum company), and had reversed the findingoftheMadrasHighCourt,wheretheDivisionBenchhadheldthat W.A.Nos.537 of 2025 7 2025:KER:57318 adirectiontovacatethepremisescouldnotbegrantedunderArticle226 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court in appeal found that the petitionerswereentitledtoinvokethewritjurisdictionofthisCourtunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein direction to vacate the premises can be issued. 8.Heardthelearnedcounselappearingfortheappellantsandthe learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the records. 9. We find that the judgment passed bythelearnedSingleJudge has considered every aspect of the matter. Relying on the decisions of the Apex Court, the learned Single Judge has rightly arrived at the following conclusion: " 21. Thus, applying the principles laid down in the afore three judgments of the Apex Court, I notice that thepetitionersinthe case at hand had specifically informed the respondent Corporation of their desire not tocontinuethelease.Theyhave also approachedthiscourtasearlyason26.11.2018,seekinga direction to the respondents to vacate the property in question. The afore acts, in my opinion, exclude the operation ofSection 116 of the Act. This is all the more so since Ext.P1 admittedly providesforrenewaloftheleaseforafurtherperiodof15years only by virtue of a fresh deed on "mutually acceptable terms." Here, there is no case for the respondents that there were any suchmutuallyacceptabletermssoastorenewtheleaseinterest. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the respondent CorporationcannotclaimthattheprovisionsofSection116ofthe Act are attracted. 22. The last question to be considered is with reference to the contention raised by the respondentCorporationthattheycould beevictedonlybyrecoursetolawsincetheirpossessionistobe taken asa"tenantatsufferance."Theaforecontentionurged,in W.A.Nos.537 of 2025 8 2025:KER:57318 yopinion,doesnotariseforconsiderationsincethepetitioners m have chosentogettherespondentsevictedbyapproachingthis Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have specifically pointed out thattheydonotwishto continue the lease as per Ext.P1. When that be so, the respondentshadadutytoensurethattheywerenotcontinuingin possessionaftertheexpiryofthevalidityofthelease,especially when an appropriate notice was also issued in the matter. 23. On the whole, I am of the opinion that the petitioners in W.P(C) No.38439 of 2018 are entitled to succeed. For thevery same reason, I find no reason to entertain W.P(C) No.39962of 2017. Resultantly, these writ petitions are disposed of as under: i. W.P(C) No.38439 of 2018isallowed.Therewillbeadirection to the respondent Corporation to vacate and deliver quiet and peacefulpossessionofthepremisescoveredbytheExt.P1lease deed within a period of four months from today. ii. W.P(C) No.39962 of 2017 is dismissed." 10.Onperusaloftheaforesaidoperativeportionofthejudgment,it is clear that the Apex Court has held that writ of mandamus can be issued directing the appellants to vacate and deliver quiet andpeaceful possession of the premises. Accordingly we do not findanyerrorinthe judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. The present writ appeal beingbereftofmeritandsubstance,isherebydismissed.Noorderasto costs. 11.However,lookingintothefactthattheappellantshereinarestill in possession of the premises covered by Ext.P1 lease deed, the appellants are directed to vacate and deliver quiet and peaceful possession of the premises covered by Ext.P1 lease deed to W.A.Nos.537 of 2025 9 2025:KER:57318 respondents 1 and 2 within a period of two months from today. The appellants are also directed to report compliance of this order to the Registrar General of this Court, who shall in turn place the report on record of present appeal. Sd/- SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE d/- S SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE MC/31.7