Kerala High Court
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vs K.Rabiyakutty on 4 August, 2025
W.A.Nos.708 of 2025 1 2025:KER:57277
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. 708 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.12.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.9089 OF 2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 NDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD I G-9,ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG,BANDRA(EAST),MUMBAI-400051,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2 HE CHIEF DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER,INDIAN OIL T CORPORATION LTD, KOZHIKODE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,IIND FLOOR, P.M.K.TOWERS,CIVIL STATION.P.O, WAYANAD ROAD,KOZHIKODE-673020. 3 HE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER(RS), T INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD,KOZHIKODE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, IIND FLOOR,P.M.K.TOWERS,CIVIL STATION.P.O, WAYANAD ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673020. Y ADVS. B DR.THUSHARA JAMES SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SHRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.KURYAN THOMAS W.A.Nos.708 of 2025 2 2025:KER:57277 HRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR (SR) S SRI.M.S.AMAL DHARSAN SHRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM SHRI.RAJA KANNAN ESPONDENTS/ORIGINAL PETITIONER AND ADDITIONAL PETITIONERS R NO.2 TO 11: 1 .RABIYAKUTTY K AGED 69 YEARS W/O.M.P.ALAVI KURIKKAL,KURIKKAL HOUSE, EDAKKARA.P.O, MALAPPURAM-679331. 2 .P.ABDUL AZEEZ KURIKKAL, M AGED 51 YEARS S/O.M.P.ALAVI KURIKKAL,KURIKKAL HOUSE, EDAKKARA.P.O, MALAPPURAM-679331. 3 .P.MOHAMMED SHAREEF KURIKKAL, M AGED 49 YEARS S/O.M.P.ALAVI KURIKKAL,KURIKKAL HOUSE, EDAKKARA.P.O, MALAPPURAM-679331. 4 .P.ABDUL MANAF KURIKKAL, M AGED 47 YEARS S/O.M.P.ALAVI KURIKKAL,KURIKKAL HOUSE, EDAKKARA.P.O, MALAPPURAM-679331. 5 .P.ABDUL RASHEED, M AGED 45 YEARS S/O.M.P.ALAVI KURIKKAL,KURIKKAL HOUSE, EDAKKARA.P.O, MALAPPURAM-679331. 6 .P.MOHAMMED SADIQUE KURIKKAL, M AGED 43 YEARS S/O.M.P.ALAVI KURIKKAL,KURIKKAL HOUSE, EDAKKARA.P.O, MALAPPURAM-679331. 7 BDUL HAKKEEM, A AGED 58 YEARS S/O.M.P.ALAVI KURIKKAL,KURIKKAL HOUSE, EDAKKARA.P.O, W.A.Nos.708 of 2025 3 2025:KER:57277 MALAPPURAM-679331. 8 ASSAL RAHMAN, F AGED 37 YEARS S/O.M.P.ALAVI KURIKKAL,KURIKKAL HOUSE, EDAKKARA.P.O, MALAPPURAM-679331. 9 ABNA.N, S AGED 34 YEARS D/O.M.P.ALAVI KURIKKAL,KURIKKAL HOUSE, EDAKKARA.P.O, MALAPPURAM-679331. 10 NAS BABU, A AGED 42 YEARS S/O P.MOIDEEN HAJI,PARAMMEL HOUSE, NILAMBUR.P.O, MALAPPURAM-679329. 11 BDUL JALEEL, A AGED 45 YEARS S/O .P.MOIDEEN HAJI,PARAMMEL HOUSE, CHUNGATHARA.P.O, MALAPPURAM-679334. 12 .RAIHANATH, K AGED 48 YEARS W/O LATE YOUSAFALI,PARAMMEL HOUSE, CHUNGATHARA.P.O, MALAPPURAM-679334. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR) HIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.07.2025, T THE COURT ON 04.8.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.Nos.708 of 2025 4 2025:KER:57277 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.9089 of 2021 whereby the learned Single Judgehasallowed the writ petition. 3. Respondents had filed W.P(C)No.9089 of 2021 concerning a retailoutletofIndianOilCorporationLtd.,locatedonpropertyleasedout bythem.Therespondentsarethejointownersofabout40centsofland in Re-Survey No.1053 of Edakkara Village in Nilambur Taluk in Malappuram District. The term of the lease was for 15 years from the date of commencement of activities of storage/sale of petroleum products; ie, from 28.11.2002. The outlet was established in the afore propertybyM/s.IBPCompanyPvt.Ltd.Astheappellantswerenotready toaccepttheoffersmadebytherespondents,therespondentshavefiled the writ petition seeking direction to quit, vacate and deliver quiet and peaceful possession of the premises covered by Ext.P1 lease deed. 4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the respondents never sought eviction of the appellants W.A.Nos.708 of 2025 5 2025:KER:57277 from the retail outlet after expiry of the lease deed and the appellants wereneverdeclaredastrespassersbycompetentCivilCourt,sincethey continue to pay rent in respect of the premises with the consent of respondents.ThelearnedSingleJudgedidnotconsiderthefactthatthe "petroleum and petroleum products" are essential commodities as per Entry 5 of the Schedule appended in the Essential Commodities Act, 1955andtherefore,thejudgmentpassedbythelearnedSingleJudgeis 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. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the afore prayerandsubmittedthattheappellant- Corporationcannotcompeltherespondentstorenewthelease,sinceas W.A.Nos.708 of 2025 6 2025:KER:57277 pertheleasedeed,thesamewasonlyfor15yearsanditexpiredinthe year 2017. Thereafter there was no renewal of the lease. The rent has also increased considerably in that area and that the appellant Corporationisnotpayingtherentasperthemarketrate.Moreover,there is great need for the property to be utilized for their own purpose. The learned Single Judge has considered each and every aspect of the matter and passed a very detailed judgment. The learned SingleJudge 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 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 specific reference to a property held by BPCL (another petroleum company), and had reversed the finding of the MadrasHighCourt,wheretheDivisionBenchhadheldthatadirectionto vacate the premises could not be granted under Article 226 of the ConstitutionofIndia.TheApexCourtinappealfoundthatthepetitioners wereentitledtoinvokethewritjurisdictionofthisCourtunderArticle226 W.A.Nos.708 of 2025 7 2025:KER:57277 of the Constitution ofIndiawhereindirectiontovacatethepremisescan be issued. 8.Heardthelearnedcounselappearingfortheappellantsandthe learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the records. 9. In W.P(C)No.39962 of 2017 and connected cases, the learned Single Judge has decided on a similar issue and passed a judgment dated 04.12.2024. We find that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge has considered every aspectofthematter.Relyingonthe decisions of the Apex Court, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition. 10. On perusal of the operative portion of the judgment in W.P(C)No.39962of2017,itisclearthattheApexCourthasheldthatwrit of mandamus can be issued directing the appellants to vacate and deliverquietandpeacefulpossessionofthepremises.Accordinglywedo not find any error in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. The present writ appeal being bereft of merit and substance, is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 11.However,lookingintothefactthattheappellantshereinarestill in possession of the premises covered by Ext.P1 lease deed, they are directed to vacate and deliver quiet and peaceful possession of the W.A.Nos.708 of 2025 8 2025:KER:57277 premises covered by Ext.P1 lease deed to the respondents within a period of two months from today or in the alternate, if the appellants agree to purchase the property as per Ext.P2 offer letter given by the respondents herein, the appellants would be at liberty to enter into an agreement with the respondents in respect of purchase. Sd/- SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE d/- S SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE MC/31.7