Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 548 (MAD)

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. R. Jayakumar

2005-03-29

S.SARDAR ZACKRIA HUSSAIN

body2005
Judgment :- Common Order: The plaintiff in suit O.S.No.395 of 1997 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Salem is the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.2908 of 2001. The said revision is filed against the dismissal order dated 13.7.2001 made in I.A.No.1361 of 1999 in O.S.No.395 of 1997 seeking permission to deposit the arrears of rent into Court. 2. The defendant in suit O.S.No.931 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Salem is the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.1006 of 2004. The said revision is filed against the dismissal order dated 26.3.2004 made in I.A.No.645 of 2002 in O.S.No.831 of 1999 praying stay all further proceedings in the suit O.S.No.831 of 1999 till the disposal of the suit O.S.No.395 of 1997. 3. The facts of both revision petitions are as follows:- The revision petitioner in both revisions is the tenant and the respondent in both revisions is the landlord. As per the lease agreement dated 7.5.1965 entered into between the defendant in O.S.No.395 of 1997 and Burmah-Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India, which is now called as Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., the revision petitioner, for a period of 30 years commencing from 1.6.1964 at a quarterly rent of Rs.1,500/- for the first ten years, Rs.1,800/- for the second ten years and Rs.2,250/- for the last ten years period. After the lease period was over, the statutory option was exercised by the revision petitioner as per letter dated 17.12.1993 for a further period of 30 years, as per terms of Sections 5 and 7(3) of the Burmah-Shell (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings in India) Act 2 of 1976. Since it was not replied, the revision petitioner filed the suit O.S.No.395 of 1997 for specific performance to renew the lease for a further period of 30 years commencing from 1.6.1994 at a quarterly rent of Rs.2,250/- and consequently for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the revision petitioner in the suit property. 4. The respondent being the landlord, filed the suit O.S.No.831 of 1999 seeking possession of the property after removing structures erected by the revision petitioner and permanent injunction against the revision petitioner from altering the existing physical features of the suit property by way of putting up any new construction, etc., in the suit property till finalisation of the suit. 5. The respondent being the landlord, filed the suit O.S.No.831 of 1999 seeking possession of the property after removing structures erected by the revision petitioner and permanent injunction against the revision petitioner from altering the existing physical features of the suit property by way of putting up any new construction, etc., in the suit property till finalisation of the suit. 5. During pendency of both suits, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.1361 of 1999 in O.S.No.395 of 1997 seeking permission to deposit the arrears of rent into Court and I.A.No.645 of 2002 in O.S.No.831 of 1999 seeking stay of all further proceedings in the suit O.S.No.831 of 1999 filed by the respondent/landlord till the disposal of the suit O.S.No.395 of 1997. Both applications were dismissed, against which these revision petitions have been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in VAIRAMANI, N.R. v. UNION OF INDIA ( 2001(1) CTC 1 ), in which this Court following the judgment of The Honourable Supreme Court in HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM AND CORPORATION LTD., AND ANOTHER v. DOLLEY DAS, JT 1999 (3) SC 61, has held that the landlord need not seek eviction from appropriate Court and could invoke writ jurisdiction and the landlord is entitled to arrears of rent. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the above said judgment was overruled by the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED vs. N.R.VAIRAMANI (2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 579), in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus:- "Under the common law as well as under the Transfer of Property Act, a tenant is liable to eviction and he has no right to purchase the land demised to him at any price. The only right of a tenant who may have put up structure on the demised land is to remove the structure at the time of delivery of possession on the determination of the lease". 8. The only right of a tenant who may have put up structure on the demised land is to remove the structure at the time of delivery of possession on the determination of the lease". 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that as per Section 3 of the Burmah-Shell (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings in India) Act 2 of 1976, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") the right, title and interest of the Burmah-Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited in relation to its undertakings in India shall stand transferred to, and shall vest in the Central Government and that therefore, since the company was taken over by the Central Government as per Section 5(1) of the Act, the Central Government has become lessee in respect of the suit property as a tenant, pursuant to the lease agreement and as per Section 5(2) of the Act on the expiry of the term of any lease or tenancy referred to in sub section(1), such lease or tenancy shall, if so desired by the Central Government, be renewed on the same terms and conditions on which the lease or tenancy was held by Burmah-Shell immediately before the appointed day. The Act came into effect on 24.1.1976. After the enactment of Section 2(a) of the Act, "appointed day" means the date of commencement of this Act, namely, 24.1.1976. Learned counsel further submits that inasmuch as in both suits, the revision petitioner is the tenant and arrears of rent is due from 1.10.1994 at the rate of Rs.2,250/- per month, the revision petitioner may be permitted to deposit the arrears of rent at the same rate till December, 2004 into Court. 9. The suit O.S.No.395 of 1997 is filed by the tenant for specific performance and permanent injunction and O.S.No.831 of 1999 is filed by the landlord for possession and as such, the relief sought in both suits are different. Therefore, the further proceedings in the later suit O.S.No.831 of 1999 cannot be ordered to stay till the disposal of the earlier suit O.S.No.395 of 1997. The trial Court, considering all these aspects, has rightly dismissed the petition I.A.No.645 of 2002 in O.S.No.831 of 1999 to stay the further proceedings in O.S.No.395 of 1997. The order of the trial Court made in I.A.No.645 of 2002 in O.S.No.831 of 1999 does not call for any interference. 10. The trial Court, considering all these aspects, has rightly dismissed the petition I.A.No.645 of 2002 in O.S.No.831 of 1999 to stay the further proceedings in O.S.No.395 of 1997. The order of the trial Court made in I.A.No.645 of 2002 in O.S.No.831 of 1999 does not call for any interference. 10. The revision petitioner is the tenant and by virtue of the Act 2 of 1976 referred to above and which came into effect on 24.1.1976, the Central Government has become lessee in respect of the suit property, since the right, title and interest of the Burmah-Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited as tenant has been transferred to the Central Government. In which case and if so desired by the Central Government, the lease can be renewed on the same terms as held by the Burmah-Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited immediately before the appointed day. It would be just and proper, if the revision petitioner is permitted to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.2,250/- per month from 1.10.1994 till December, 2004 and also at the same rate till the disposal of the suit O.S.No.395 of 1997. Accordingly, the order of the trial Court made in I.A.No.1361 of 1999 in O.S.No.395 of 1997 being improper is to be set aside allowing the C.R.P.No.2908 of 2001. 11. C.R.P.No.2908 of 2001:- In the result, C.R.P.No.2908 of 2001 is allowed, setting aside the order and decretal order dated 13.7.2001 made in I.A.No.1361 of 1999 in O.S.No.395 of 1997 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Salem. The revision petitioner is permitted to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.2,250/- per month from 1.10.1994 till December, 2004 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the credit of the suit O.S.No.395 of 1997 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court at Salem. The revision petitioner is also permitted to pay the future rent at the same rate till the disposal of the suit O.S.No.395 of 1997. No costs. Consequently, the connected petition C.M.P.No.15525 of 2001 is closed. 12. C.R.P.No.1006 of 2004:- In the result, C.R.P.No.1006 of 2004 is dismissed, confirming the order and decretal order dated 26.3.2004 passed in I.A.No.645 of 2002 in O.S.No.831 of 1999 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Salem. No costs. No costs. Consequently, the connected petition C.M.P.No.15525 of 2001 is closed. 12. C.R.P.No.1006 of 2004:- In the result, C.R.P.No.1006 of 2004 is dismissed, confirming the order and decretal order dated 26.3.2004 passed in I.A.No.645 of 2002 in O.S.No.831 of 1999 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Salem. No costs. Consequently, the connected petition C.M.P.No.10306 of 2004 is closed. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submits that inasmuch as both the suits are pending for a long time, direction may be issued to the Trial Court to dispose both suits at an early date. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has no objection to dispose both suits at an early date. Therefore, the Principal District Munsif Court, Salem is directed to dispose both suits, O.S.Nos.395 of 1997 and 831 of 1999 by the end of July, 2005.