Telangana High Court
P.Balaiah , Balaraj vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited on 21 November, 2023
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.10893 of 2023
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. The prayer as sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition, reads as under:
"To issue an order writ or direction more particularly one in nature of writ of MANDUMUS declaring the action of the respondents in not vacating the premises bearing property admeasuring an extent of 4222.2 sq.yds in Sy.No.873, 874 and 871/1, situated at Jangampally Village, Bhiknoor Mandal, Nizambad District taken in pursuance of the lease agreement dated 23.01.2003 even after the expiry of the lease deed is not legal and the same is arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to vacate and handover the premises forthwith to the petitioner."
3. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:
a) The petitioner is the absolute owner of the property admeasuring an extent of 4222.2 sq.yds in Sy.No.873, 874 and 871/1, situated at Jangampally Village, Bhiknoor Mandal, Nizambad District.2
SN,J WP.10893 of 2023
b) The said property was taken on lease by M/s.IBP company Limited by entering into Lease Agreement dated 23.01.2003 for a period of 15 years for the purpose of running a retail outlet. Subsequently, IBP Company got merged with Indian Oil Corporation.
c) Thereafter, due to widening of National Highway 44 the entry point and the exit point of the retail outlet was not conducive to the motoring public and because of this reason, there was a plummet in sale of petroleum product and running of the retail outlet became unviable for the company. Therefore, the retail outlet was closed in the year 2009-10. Thereafter, two years prior to the expiry of the lease, the petitioner had issued a legal notice dated 04.07.2016 to the respondents to vacate the premises and handover the vacant possession, but there was no response. After expiry of lease period, the petitioner had made several representations viz., on 24.02.2018, 22.11.2021, 10.02.2021 and last representation was made on 30.08.2022. Further, the respondents have cleared the rental dues till February, 2022 and for the subsequent period, lease amount has not been paid. Hence, this writ petition. 3
SN,J WP.10893 of 2023
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner placing reliance on the order dated 11.09.2023 of this Court, passed in W.P.No.10096 of 2021 and on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2021) 13 SCC 121 in National Company represented by its Managing Partner Vs. Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Another contends that the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition.
5. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the lease period as per the lease agreement entered into between the petitioner and M/s.IBP company Limited, admittedly as borne on record expired in the year 2018 i.e. on 22.01.2018 and thereafter, the petitioner had made several representations i.e. on 24.02.2018, 22.11.2021, 10.02.2021 and 30.08.2022 requesting the respondents to vacate the premises as the period of lease is expired and rental amounts had not been paid regularly. It is also noted that it is averred by the petitioner that from 01.08.2008 till as on date, petrol pump is not in operation.
6. In identical circumstances the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION 4 SN,J WP.10893 of 2023 LIMITED Vs. DOLLY DASs case reported in (1999) 4 Supreme Court Cases 450 held that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable.
7. The Apex Court in "BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD v. MADDULA RATNAVALLI & ORS"
reported in 2007 Volume 6 SCC Page 81 took the view that the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India is required to be reasonable fair, bonafide and not arbitrary even while acting as a tenant or landlord.
8. The order dated 11.09.2023 passed in W.P.No.10096 of 2021, in particular paragraph Nos.14 and 16, reads as under:
"14. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P.No.8371 of 2003 under identical circumstances vide its Judgment dated 30.03.2009 at its conclusion observed as under:
"12. It must not be forgotten that even where a property is compulsorily acquired, the owner thereof is given opportunity at various levels, be it, as regards his willingness, to part with it, or the adequacy of compensation. Law also provides for solatium for the compulsory acquisition. The 5 SN,J WP.10893 of 2023 respondent felt that the lessor or his transferee is a non-entity; and at their will, they can squat on the property, even while earning profits of hundreds and thousands of crores of rupees, in their business. Hardly any act of sovereignty is involved in the activities of the respondent. Their activity is pure and simple, commercial in nature. Still, they have arrogated to themselves, the power, which even a sovereign State could not have claimed.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed. Three months time is granted to the respondent to vacate the premises, and pay the arrears of rent from May 1999 @ Rs.90/- per month."
16. Taking into consideration the above said facts and circumstances and the view taken by the Apex Court in judgment reported in 1999 (4) SCC page 450 in Hindustan Petrolium Corporation Ltd v Dolly Das and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd v Maddula Ratnavalli and others reported in 2007 Volume 6 SCC page 81, the writ petition is allowed."
9. The judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2021) 13 SCC 121 in National Company represented by its Managing Partner v Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and another, it has been held that the landlord, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 6 SN,J WP.10893 of 2023 can seek a direction to the respondents to vacate the premises and it was not necessary to relegate the landlord to alternate remedy available in law. Para 17 of the said judgment reads as under:
"Perusal of the impugned judgment rendered by the Division Bench would reveal that though an objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of alternate remedy was seriously raised by the respondent No.1BPCL, the Division Bench was not impressed much with the said submission. As a matter of fact, the Division Bench not only referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of ABL International Ltd. and another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and others but also emboldened the following observations of this Court while reproducing paragraph 19 of the said judgment, which reads thus:
"19. Therefore, it is clear from the above enunciation of law that merely because one of the parties to the litigation raises a dispute in regard to the facts of the case, the court entertaining such petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not always bound to relegate the parties to a suit."
10. This Court opines that since the respondents had not been paying regularly to the petitioner and since the lease period 7 SN,J WP.10893 of 2023 expired in the year 2018 itself and since it is specifically averred by the petitioner that from 01.08.2008 onwards till as on date the petrol pump is not in operation which is not disputed by the respondents herein. This Court opines that the respondent corporation in the capacity of a tenant is bound to deliver vacant possession of the subject premises to the petitioner, who is the owner on determination of the lease.
11. Taking into consideration, the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and duly taking into consideration the view taken by the Apex Court and this Court (referred to and extracted above), the writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to vacate the petitioner's property viz., admeasuring an extent of 4222.2 sq.yds in Sy.No.873, 874 and 871/1, situated at Jangampally Village, Bhiknoor Mandal, Nizambad District, which has been taken on lease by the respondent corporation in pursuance of the Lease Agreement dated 23.01.2003 and handover the said premises to the petitioner, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
8
SN,J WP.10893 of 2023 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
_________________ SUREPALLI NANDA, J Date:21.11.2023 Dua 9 SN,J WP.10893 of 2023 HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.10893 of 2023 21.11.2023 Dua