O.S.A. No. 275 of 2007, C.M.A. No. 336 of 1987 and C.M.A. No. 2797 of 2006. Case: 1.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 2.P.R. Aithala @ P. Ramakrishna Aithala, 3.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs 1.R. Ravikrishnan and Thevar Automobiles, 2.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 3.Dr. T.D. Ramasubramanian and Ors., [Alongwith C.R.P. (NPD) No.1815 of 2002]. High Court of Madras (India)
| Case Number | O.S.A. No. 275 of 2007, C.M.A. No. 336 of 1987 and C.M.A. No. 2797 of 2006 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Krishna Srinivasan, Adv., G. Masilamani, Sr. Counsel and King and Partridge, Adv. and P.S. Raman, Sr. Counsel for R. Bharanidharan, Adv. And For Respondents: O.R. Santhana Krishnan, Adv., K.C. Rajappa, Adv., Habibulla Basha, Sr. counsel, T.M. Pappiah, Adv. and Sathish Parasaran, Adv. |
| Judges | D. Murugesan and K.K. Sasidharan, JJ. |
| Issue | Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 - Sections 2(4), 3 and 9; Acquisition of Undertaking in India Act, 1976 - Sections 7 and 9; Tamil Nadu Act, 1972 - Section 12; Causes Courts Act, 1882 - Section 41; Amendment Act, 1972 - Section 3; Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 396(1) and 396(2); Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Section 15A |
| Judgement Date | August 08, 2011 |
| Court | High Court of Madras (India) |
Judgment:
D. Murugesan, J.
-
Whether the Public Sector Oil Companies who have entered into license agreements with their dealers and inducted them in possession of the leased land, buildings and equipment to run retail outlets would come within the meaning of Section 2(4)(ii)(a) and could maintain an application under Section 9 of the Chennai City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 is the core question to be decided in these batch of cases pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its judgment dated 03.12.2009 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5903/2006, 1257/2007, 1925/2007 and 708/2008.
-
The claim made by the oil Companies invoking the provisions of Chennai City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 [hereinafter referred to as 'City Tenants Protection Act'] to purchase the land in their legal possession and licensed to the dealers, came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in C.A. No. 5903/2006 etc. batch. The Supreme Court rejected the claim made by the oil Companies under Section 2(4)(ii)(b) of the City Tenants' Protection Act on the ground that the oil Companies were not in actual physical possession.
However, the Supreme Court was of the view that their claim should be considered under Section 2(4)(ii)(a) of the Act. Accordingly, the matter was remanded to this Court to render a finding. The operative portion of the remand order reads thus:
-
to record a finding on the question whether the Appellant is covered by Section 2(4)(i) and Sub-clause (a) of Section 2(4)(ii) of the Act and is entitled to the benefits of Section 9(1). Needless to mention, the Division Bench of the High Court shall decide the said question in accordance with law and uninfluenced by any observation made by us in this order except our finding about Clause (b) of Section 2(4). We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion of our own on other issues.
-
Factual matrix of the respective civil miscellaneous appeals/original side appeal/revision are as follows:
C.M.A. No. 2797/2006:-- M/S. Caltex Oil Refining India Ltd. entered into a lease agreement with the owner of the premises bearing Door No. 85, Old No. 15/18, Sir Thiyagaraja Road, Chennai 600 017, for the purpose of putting up a petroleum outlet. The lease agreement was executed on 22.06.1959. The lease was initially for a period of five years with effect from 01.05.1959 and it was later renewed periodically up to 30.04.1979. The lessee after constructing a building, canopy and other facilities, opened the outlet. Caltex Oil Refining India Ltd. was taken over by the Government of India and it was later transferred to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., [hereinafter referred to as HPCL]. The landlord issued a lawyer's notice dated 28.04.1982, calling upon HPCL to vacate and deliver possession besides claiming damages from 01.05.1979. This was followed by a civil suit in C.S. No. 598/1983 filed by the landlord praying for a decree for recovery of possession. In the said suit, HPCL filed an application bearing No. 3891/1984 under Section 9 of the City Tenants' Protection Act for a direction to the landlord to sell the suit property to them. The application was contested by the landlord. The matter was later transferred to the IV Additional Fast Track Court and the suit was registered as O.S. No. 4570/1997. The interlocutory application filed by HPCL was renumbered as I.A. No. 43/2005. In the meantime, the property was purchased by the present owner from the original Plaintiff. The application submitted by HPCL under Section 9 of the City Tenants' Protection Act was dismissed by the lower Court as per order dated 12.07.2006. The said order was challenged before the High Court in C.M.A. No. 2797/2006. This Court as per judgment and Decree dated 24.11.2006, dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court. The Special Leave petition filed by the Corporation was taken up by the Supreme Court along with similar other matters and ultimately, the order of this Court was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
-
C.R.P.(NPD) No. 1815/2002:--The property admeasuring about 8440 sq.ft. comprised in O.S. No. 2101 and 2106 corresponding to R.S. No. 1692/33, Luz Church Road, Mylapore was taken on lease by the erstwhile Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Ltd. as per lease agreement dated 03.05.1961 for the purpose of putting up their retail outlet of petroleum products. The lease originally was for a period of ten years with effect from 01.05.1959 to 31.08.1969. Subsequently, Burma Shell was taken over by Government of India. By passing Burma Shell (Acquisition of Undertaking in India) Act, 1976. The undertaking was later transferred to M/S. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. By virtue of the provisions of Acquisition Act, existing lease was renewed for a further period of ten years from 01.09.1969 to 31.08.1979. Subsequent request made by BPCL for a further period of lease was rejected by the landlord.
-
The landlord later filed a suit in O.S. No. 8922/1995 before the City Civil Court, Chennai, praying for a decree of possession. In the said suit, BPCL filed an application in I.A. No. 6547/1996 invoking Section 9 of the City Tenants' Protection Act. The Trial Court, as per order dated 16.08.2000, appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property and find out the extent of land necessary for BPCL to run its business. The said order was challenged by the landlord in C.M.A. No. 131/2001. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was allowed by the Appellate Court as per judgment and Decree dated 12.12.2001. The said order was challenged before this Court in C.R.P. No. 1815/2002.
-
The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed by this Court on 25.08.2005 holding that BPCL was not in possession of the property and as such, they are not entitled to the benefits of the City Tenants' Protection Act. The said order was challenged in S.L.P. No. 2471/2006, which was subsequently registered as C.A. No. 5903/2006. The Supreme Court by way of a common order remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
-
C.M.A. No. 336 of 1987:--Land admeasuring 100x100 feet situated at No. 183-A, R.S. No. 1139/2B Royapettah High Road, Chennai, was taken on lease by the erstwhile ESSO Eastern Inc. by way of a lease deed dated 26.02.1962. The lease was for the purpose of putting up a retail petroleum outlet. Initially, the lease was for a period of ten years with effect from 10.02.1962. Subsequently, the landlord filed a suit in O.S. No. 4400/1972, before the IV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai against ESSO Eastern Inc., praying for a decree of possession. By virtue of the ESSO (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act, the Central Government became the owner of the said Company and by way of a notification dated 12.07.1974, Government of India transferred the right, title and interest of ESSO Eastern Inc. in favour of M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as HPCL]. The suit filed by the landlord in O.S. No. 4400/1972 was dismissed by the IV Addition City Civil Court, Chennai as per judgment and Decree dated 06.05.1979. The said judgment and Decree was taken up in appeal in A.S. No. 337/1979 before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The appeal was dismissed on 01.08.1980.
-
The landlord in the meantime, filed another suit in O.S. No. 3590/1982 before the City Civil Court, Chennai against HPCL praying for a decree of possession. In the said suit, HPCL filed an application in I.A. No. 12457/1982 under Section 9 of the City Tenants' Protection Act. The City Civil Court, Chennai by way of order dated 21.12.1983, held that HPCL is entitled to purchase the property under Section 9 of the City Tenants' Protection Act and appointed an Advocate Commissioner to determine the land value and to fix the compensation. The said order was challenged before this Court in C.M.A. No. 336/1987. The landlord has also filed an appeal in A.S. No. 113/1991 challenging the judgment and Decree in O.S. No. 3590/1982. The High Court as per judgment and Decree dated 09.10.2006, allowed the appeal filed by the landlord and dismissed the appeal filed by HPCL under Section 9 of the City Tenants' Protection Act. The said judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court by way of special leave petition. The SLP which was later converted as civil appeal, was allowed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.
-
O.S.A. No. 275/2007:-- The property admeasuring 350 and 597 sq.ft. at Door No. 73, T.T.K.Road, C.I.T. Colony, Chennai 18, was taken on lease by M/S. Burma Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company, as per lease deed dated 01.03.1962. The lease originally was for a period of twenty years with effect from 01.03.1962. It was for the purpose of opening a petroleum outlet. M/S. Burma Shell Oil Company was taken over by the Government of India by virtue of the Central Enactment under the name and style of "Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1976". The Central Government thereafter issued a notification on 12.02.1976, whereby the name of Burmah Shell Refineries Ltd., was changed to Bharat Refineries Ltd. and later as BPCL. The period of lease expired on 28.02.1982. The landlord filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 8507/2002 praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing BPCL to vacate and hand over possession of the property. The writ petition was dismissed on 18.07.2005.
-
The landlord thereafter filed a civil suit in C.S. No. 687/2006 before the original side of this Court praying for a decree directing the BPCL to hand over vacant possession of the land. In the said suit, BPCL filed an application No. 476/2007, exercising their right under Section 9 of the City Tenants' Protection Act, praying for a direction to sell the subject land at a price fixed by the Court. The said application was dismissed on 02.07.2007 holding that the dealer is in physical possession of the property and as such, BPCL is...
To continue reading
Request your trial