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
