Madras High Court
Dr.E.Chitra vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation ... on 14 October, 2022
WP.No.8928 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
WP.No.8928 of 2013
Dr.E.Chitra ... Petitioner
Vs
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited,
Represented by is Territory Manager,
Mr.Thangavel,
Karur Installation, Athur, Kataparai Village,
Karur – 639 002, Karur District. ... Respondent
Prayer:- This Writ Petition is filed, under the Article 226 of Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent and its men to
hand over vacant possession of the premises at S.No.734/2, Old Bangalore
Road, Near Gandhi Statute, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District to the
petitioner herein.
[Prayer amended vide Order dt.27.09.2022 made in W.M.P.
No.20521 of 2018 in W.P.No.8928 of 2013 by NSKJ]
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari
For Respondent : Mr.O.S.Karthikeyan
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.8928 of 2013
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondent and its men
to hand over vacant possession of the premises at S.No.734/2, Old
Bangalore Road, Near Gandhi Statute, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District to
the petitioner herein.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the subject property was
purchased by her by virtue of a sale deed dated 15.11.2012. Prior to the
purchase, the petitioner's predecessor has leased the property to the
respondent on 28.02.1992 for a period extended upto 31.12.1998 and the
said lease expired on 31.12.1998 and the same has not been renewed. The
dealer appointed by the respondent has also died and the dealership got
terminated due to the death of the dealer and no business activity is being
carried out in the premises till date. Though the Writ Petition was
originally filed seeking prohibitory Order, subsequently, the prayer in the
Writ Petition has been amended for directing the respondent to hand over
vacant possession of the property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.8928 of 2013
3. Counter has been filed by the respondent to the effect that the
petitioner has not informed the purchase of the property to the respondent.
Therefore, it is their contention that the rents have been paid to the previous
owner. It is their further contention that the property was originally leased
for a period of 10 years from 22.04.1964 by way of a registered lease deed.
The Lease was renewed for a further period upto 25.07.1974 and again the
lease was extended from 01.01.89 to 31.12.1998 on a monthly rent of
Rs.1500/-. Thereafter, the predecessor of the petitioner had a discussion
with the respondent to renew the lease. It is his further contention that in
the meanwhile, the predecessor in title had died and his legal heirs also
agreed to receive the rent. Further, there is no intimation to the respondent
with regard to the sale of the property. Therefore, it is their contention that
steps have been taken by the Corporation to get lease renewed on a
monthly rent of Rs.16,000/ . Further the original lessor had expired.
Therefore, it is their contention that at no point of time, the petitioner took
possession of the property. Hence, opposed the Writ petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.8928 of 2013
though the respondent Corporation was inducted as a tenant from the year
1964 and thereafter, lease was extended up to 1998, subsequently, the
lease has not been renewed and rents have not been paid. Once, the lease
has not been renewed and rents have not been paid, the status of the
respondent would only be a trespasser in the property. They have no right,
whatsoever, to squat in the property. It is his further contention that lease
was not in existence. Therefore, it is his contention that the Corporation
has no legal right to squat in the property, the Writ Petition is very well
maintainable for directing the respondent to hand over the vacant
possession of the property. In support of his submissions he relied on the
following judgments:
“National Company Vs. Manager reported in 2019
SCC OnLine Mad 38941
National Company Territory Manager Vs. Bharath
Petroleum Corporation Limited & another reported in 2021
SCC OnLine SC 1042
National Company V Joint Chief Controller of
Explosives – W.P.No.31055 of 2012 batch dated 10.03.2020
and submitted that the Writ Petition is maintainable as against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.8928 of 2013
Corporation when there is no disputed facts in the case.
5. Whereas the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would
submit that the lease has been expired in the year 1998 and before the steps
being taken to renew the lease, the original lessor expired. However, they
continued to pay the rent. It is their further contention that now the third
party has raised dispute stating that the property is a wakf property.
Therefore, it is their contention that in the Writ Petition, the respondent
cannot be vacated.
6. I have perused entire materials. With regard to the maintainability
of the Writ Petition, in the Judgment of the this Court in M.Ashrafunisa
and another Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation represented by its
Manager and another reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 26422, this
Court has held that when there is no disputed question of law or facts arose
for consideration, the Writ Petition is maintainable and the Writ Petition
has been filed as against Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, wherein
this Court has held that continuous occupation of the premises without
paying any rent, after the lease is terminated, taking note of the statutory
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.8928 of 2013
right of the petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India, directed
the respondent to vacate the premises. The above view has been reiterated
by the Division Bench of this Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Ltd. V. R.Ravikrishnan reported in 2011 [5] CTC 437. Therefore, this
Court holds that the Writ Petition is maintainable.
7. The only defence taken by the respondent in the entire counter is
that after expiry of the lease in the year 1998, the Corporation has taken
steps to renew the lease. However, before the same has been finalised, the
original lessor died. Thereafter, they are continuing in possession. Though
a stand has been taken by the respondent that they continue to pay the rent,
absolutely, no materials have been placed before this Court in this regard.
The other stand taken by the respondent is that the sale of the property has
not been intimated and if they have been properly intimated, they would
have attorned the tenancy to the purchaser.
8. Admittedly, from the year 1964 to 1998 Corporation was enjoying
the property by paying a meagre rent. Therefore, once the property has
been transferred and title has been passed to a third party, the Corporation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.8928 of 2013
cannot insist that such a purchase has to be intimated to them. Registration
of the sale deed itself is a public notice. Admittedly, in this case, without
any materials, contentions have been raised as though they are
continuously paying rent which has not been substantiated by any piece of
evidence before this Court. In the absence of any evidence to show that the
rents have been paid regularly, the status of the respondent would be
nothing but a trespasser. In such view of the matter, being a Corporation,
being state instrumentality and remaining in the property of the landlord
without paying any rent, is akin to encroacher enjoying the property. As
expiry of the lease in the year 1998, i.e., 31.12.1998 has not been disputed
and the Corporation has not established that they are continuing as a
tenant, they cannot remain in possession for ever in the property.
9. Now during the arguments, a stand has been taken by the
respondent to the effect that somebody has raised an objection that the
property belong to Wakf and therefore, the petitioner has no right over the
property. Such a contention of the Corporation has no legs to stand for two
reasons. Firstly, there is no plea raised in their counter to that effect and
secondly, they are estopped from denying the title of the landlord as per
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.8928 of 2013
Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. Once they are inducted as a tenant
by the landlord, they are estopped from denying the title of the landlord as
per mandate of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act.
10. Further, it is not the case of the respondent that they have raised
any construction and therefore, they are entitled to protection under section
9 of the City Tenant Protection Act. No such plea has been raised in the
counter. It is an admitted case of the Corporation that they are not in
actual possession of the property and infact they have given licence to some
dealer. Once, the premises has been leased out by way of licence, it cannot
be said that the corporation is in actual possession. Therefore, protection
under section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act also would enure any
benefit to the respondent.
11. The Honourable Apex Court in Jaspal Kaur Cheema Vs.
Industrial Trade Links reported in [2017] 8 SCC 592 has held that the
tenant cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time after being put in
possession of the premises and they cannot deny the title of the landlord.
In this regard it is useful to refer the judgment of the Division Bench this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.8928 of 2013
Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. V. R.Ravikrishnan
reported in 2011 [5] CTC 437, wherein the Corporation took a plea under
section 9 of the City Protection Act that since the Corporation entered into
a dealership agreement with the dealer and the Corporation is not in actual
possession of the property and it has been held that Corporation cannot
invoke Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act. It is also relevant to
note that the above judgment has been upheld by the Honourable Apex
Court in the latest judgment in National Company represented by its
Managing Partner Vs. Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. and another reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1042
and the Honourable Supreme Court has directed the respondent to vacate
and hand over the possession. As the respondent Corporation is squatting
in the property without paying any rent after expiry of lease in the year
1998, they cannot continue in possession of the property as their
possession is nothing but illegal as that of a trespasser and they are bound
to vacate the premises. Considering the above position of law, now for the
sake of defending their possession, the respondent corporation cannot take
a different stand during the submissions that the property belong to wakf
and that is also not permissible in law, since they are estopped from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.8928 of 2013
denying the title of the landlord. Now it is stated that the licence issued to
the dealer also has been suspended due to some irregularities and the same
has been challenged.
12. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this Writ Petition
is allowed and the respondent is directed to hand over vacant possession of
the premises to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs.
14.10.2022
Index:Yes/No
Web:Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking
vrc
To,
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited,
Represented by is Territory Manager,
Mr.Thangavel,
Karur Installation, Athur, Kataparai Village,
Karur – 639 002, Karur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.8928 of 2013
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vrc
WP.No.8928 of 2013
14.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
