Kerala High Court
V.P. Muhammed Ayoob vs Rosy Jacob on 6 November, 2024
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2024:KER:82811
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 15TH KARTHIKA,
1946
RP NO. 1141 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.10.2024 IN WA NO.2023 OF 2023
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/4th RESPONDENT:
V.P. MUHAMMED AYOOB
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O MOHAMMED HAJI, EDAVANNA AMSOM, ERANJIKODE,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676511
BY ADVS.
NISHA GEORGE
GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
2024:KER:82811
R.P.Nos.1141 and 1148 of 2024
-: 2 :-
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
1 ROSY JACOB
AGED 57 YEARS
W/O JACOB K.JACOB, MANAGING PARTNER, MANNARKAD
FILLING STATION (CC NO.116160), MANNARKAD,
RESIDING AT KARIPAPARAMBIL, PAYYANADAM P.0,
MANNARKAD, PALAKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678582
2 M/S BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED
BHARATH BHAVAN, 4&6 CURRIMBHOY ROAD, BALLARD
ESTATE, MUMBAI REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR, PIN - 400001
3 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD, 1ST FLOOR,
PETRONET CCK LTD, IRIMPANAM, ERNAKULUM, PIN -
682030
4 DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES
PETROLIUM & EXPLOSIVE SAFETY ORGANISATION
(PESO), KENDRIYA BHAVAN, BLOCK C2, 3RD FLOOR,
CGO COMPLEX, KAKANAD, ERNAKULUM, PIN - 682037
SRI.V.M. KRISHNAKUMAR
SRI.M. GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
06.11.2024, ALONG WITH RP.1148/2024, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:82811
R.P.Nos.1141 and 1148 of 2024
-: 3 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 15TH KARTHIKA,
1946
RP NO. 1148 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.10.2024 IN WP(C) NO.38643
OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER:
V.P. MUHAMMED AYOOB
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O. V.P. MOHAMMED HAJI, RESIDING AT
VALIYAPEEDIKAKKAL HOUSE, ERANHIKODE P.O.,
EDAVANNA, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676511
BY ADVS.
NISHA GEORGE
GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
2024:KER:82811
R.P.Nos.1141 and 1148 of 2024
-: 4 :-
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW
DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED
BHARATH BHAVAN, 476, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING
DIRECTOR, PIN - 400001
3 M/S MANNARKAD FILLING STATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, ROSY
JACOB, W/O. JACOB K. JACOB, AGED 57 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KARIPAPARAMBIL, PAYYANADAM P.O.,
MANNARKAD, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678582
BY ADV Kiran M.S.
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
06.11.2024, ALONG WITH RP.1141/2024, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:82811
SATHISH NINAN & JOHNSON JOHN, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.P.No.1141 of 2024 in W.A.No.2023 of 2023
&
R.P.No.1148 of 2024 in W.P.(C)No.38643 of 2023
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 6th day of November, 2024
ORDER
Sathish Ninan, J.
Review is sought on the following grounds;
(i) The observation in paragraph 27 of the judgment that the
licensee has filed a suit as O.S.No.86 of 2023, seeking
declaration of fixity under Section 106 of the Kerala Land
Reforms Act, 1963, is not correct.
(ii) The finding of the learned Single Judge with regard to
the "right to the site" of the licensee ought not have been
interfered with.
(iii) In view of the various judgments relied on by the review
petitioner, including the judgment in C. Albert Morris v. K.
Chandrasekaran and others [(2006) 1 SCC 228], eviction
ought to have been granted.
2. A copy of the plaint in O.S.No.86 of 2023 is
produced as Annexure-1 along with W.A.No.2023 of 2023.
It is a suit for prohibitory injunction against
2024:KER:82811
R.P.Nos.1141 and 1148 of 2024
interfering with the conduct of petroleum retail outlet
by the licensee. Paragraphs 7 and 8 thereof read thus:
"7. It is submitted that having obtained the plaint schedule
property on lease for running a petroleum retail outlet
(Commercial lease) and having made constructions therein of
permanent nature (specifically agreed to in page No.11, clause
6 of lease deed No.2145 of 1992) for the purpose of running its
petroleum retail outlet, the plaintiff is entitled to be protected
against eviction as per Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms
Act, 1963; '(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this
Act, or in any other law or in any contract or in any order or
decree of the Court, where on any land leased for commercial
or industrial purpose the lessee has constructed buildings for
such commercial or industrial purpose before the 20th May,
1967, he shall not be liable to be evicted from such land but
shall be liable to pay rent under the contract of tenancy, and
such rent shall be liable to be varied every twelve year.'
8. It is submitted that having satisfied the ingredients of Section
106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, the plaintiff became
a statutory tenant whose tenancy is protected by the Kerala
Land Reforms Act, 1963. It is worthwhile to point out that the
object of Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1967 is
to protect tenants who have with permission constructed
2024:KER:82811
R.P.Nos.1141 and 1148 of 2024
buildings on others' lands to carry on their trade or business
from being dislocated and disturbed in their business. Being a
welfare legislation, the conditions for its applicability and the
exceptions to its operation have to be sought in the legislation
itself, construing it strictly and giving the benefit of doubt in its
expression to the tenants for whose benefit it is designed. The
plaintiff's predecessor being a commercial lessee and the
plaintiff being the successor-in-interest and since structures
were put up in the year 1963, the plaintiff is not liable to be
evicted from the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff is
entitled for protection from eviction under Section 106 of the
Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963."
Evidently, the right claimed is under Section 106 of the
Kerala Land Reforms Act. Of course, as pointed out by
the review petitioner, the relief claimed in the suit is
not one for declaration but for injunction.
3. With regard to ground No.(ii), the same has
been dealt with in paragraph 20 of the judgment. This
Court has only left open the issue for consideration of
appropriate proceedings by the licensee, who alone is
held to have the locus to challenge the cancellation of
2024:KER:82811
R.P.Nos.1141 and 1148 of 2024
licence.
4. As regards contention No.(iii) raised, in
paragraph 29 of the judgment this Court has noticed that
in view of the various factual contentions urged by the
rival parties, as referred to in paragraphs 23 to 28 of
the judgment, disputed questions of facts arise. It is
accordingly that the landowner was relegated to civil
court.
Resultantly, but for clarifying that the suit,
O.S.No.86 of 2023, is one for injunction and not for
declaration, no other orders are called for in these
review petitions. The review petitions are disposed of
as above.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOHNSON JOHN
JUDGE
yd
