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
