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
