Kerala High Court
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vs Niyas Manath Ismail on 4 August, 2025
W.A.Nos.615 of 2025 1 2025:KER:57311
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. 615 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.12.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.22404 OF 2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN WP(C):
1 NDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. I REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, G- 9, ALI YAVAR, JUNG MARG, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA, PIN - 400051 2 HE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (RS) T INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., COCHIN DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PANAMPALLY AVENUE, PANAMPALLY NAGAR P.O., ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682036 Y ADV DR.THUSHARA JAMES B SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR) RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER IN WP(C): IYAS MANATH ISMAIL N AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. M.M.ISMAIL, MANATH PAZHAYAPURAYIL, KAKKANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030 BY ADVS. W.A.Nos.615 of 2025 2 2025:KER:57311 RI.SABU GEORGE S SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER 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.615 of 2025 3 2025:KER:57311 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.22404of2022wherebythelearnedSingleJudgehasallowed the writ petition. 3.TherespondenthasfiledW.P(C)No.22404of2022concerninga retailoutletofIndianOilCorporationLtd.,locatedonpropertyleasedout by him. The respondent is the owner of about 60 cents of land in Re-Survey No.560/2, 560/10 and 560/11 of Vazhakkala Village in ErnakulamDistrict.Thetermoftheleasewasfor15yearsfromthedate of commencement ofactivitiesofstorage/saleofpetroleumproducts;ie, from 21.03.2003. The outlet was established in the afore property by M/s.IBP Company Pvt. Ltd. The appellants had issued a letter dated 23.05.2017 to the respondent expressing their intention to renew the lease deed. In reply, the respondent's mother had informed the appellants that sheiswillingtorenewtheleasedeedwithenhancement of the rent. Since both the parties were unable to agree with the terms and conditions for the renewal, therespondenthasfiledthewritpetition W.A.Nos.615 of 2025 4 2025:KER:57311 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 respondent never sought eviction of the appellants 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 the respondent. The learned Single Judge did not considerthefactthatthe "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 W.A.Nos.615 of 2025 5 2025:KER:57311 of India. Onthesegrounds,thelearnedcounselfortheappellantsprays for setting aside the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently opposed the afore prayerandsubmittedthattheappellant- Corporation cannot compel the respondent torenewthelease,sinceas pertheleasedeed,thesamewasonlyfor15yearsanditexpiredinthe year 2018. 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 the respondent 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 W.A.Nos.615 of 2025 6 2025:KER:57311 MadrasHighCourt,wheretheDivisionBenchhadheldthatadirectionto vacate the premises could not be granted under Article 226 of the ConstitutionofIndia.TheApexCourtinappealfoundthatthepetitioners wereentitledtoinvokethewritjurisdictionofthisCourtunderArticle226 of the Constitution ofIndiawhereindirectiontovacatethepremisescan be issued. 8.Heardthelearnedcounselappearingfortheappellantsandthe learned counsel appearing for the respondent 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. W.A.Nos.615 of 2025 7 2025:KER:57311 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 premisescoveredbyExt.P1leasedeedtotherespondentwithinaperiod oftwomonthsfromtodayorinthealternate,iftherespondentagreesto the negotiated lease deed rate and has expressed willingness to enter into a lease agreement with the appellants, the appellants would be at libertytoenterintoanagreementwiththerespondenttorenewthelease deed. Sd/- SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE d/- S SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE MC/31.7