Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 382 (ORI)

Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur

2019-05-01

A.K.MISHRA, S.K.MISHRA

body2019
JUDGMENT S.K. Mishra, J. - This writ appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 09.02.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.10868 of 2012 whereby the learned Single Judge has directed the opposite party - present appellant to vacate the disputed premise forthwith and to receive back the instruments as well as the machines, if any, from the land by way of surrender of outlet and make the land free. 2. The background facts for filing writ are outlined thus:- Jasbir Singh is the husband of present respondent. On 08.09.1993 he entered into a lease agreement with M/s. HPCL, the present appellant, for installation of a HPCL Petrol outlet in respect of land measuring 8800 square feet, appertaining to plot No.979 under Khata No.13 in mouza Chorda. The said agreement was a registered one. The lease was for a term of twenty years, commencing from 01.01.1991 and determinable. Amongst other conditions, the Lessee - HPCL was obliged with a condition at clause 1(f) that; "to deliver up the demised premises to the Lessors at the expiration or sooner determination of the said term or its renewal after restoring the demised premises in its former condition." The Lessor was also obliged with a condition at clause 2(c) that; "the Lessors shall on the written request of the Lessee made before the expiry of the term hereby created and if there shall not at the time of such request by any existing breach or non-observance of any of the covenants on the part of the Lessee herein before contained grant to Lessee a lease of the demised premises for the further term of ten years from the expiration of the said term at mutually agreed terms and conditions. 3. The Lessor Jasbir Singh died on 30.03.2009 leaving behind his widow, two sons and one daughter. The widow of Jasbir Singh found difficulty to continue with the management of HPCL Petrol outlet and applied for surrendering of the same to the HPCL authorities. On 15.03.2012 she wrote a letter to the HPCL authority conveying her intention not to continue with the retail outlet. Her request was not responded. On her behalf, a pleader notice was issued on 09.05.2012. As no reply was received, she filed the writ petition, of which order is impugned in this appeal. 4. On 15.03.2012 she wrote a letter to the HPCL authority conveying her intention not to continue with the retail outlet. Her request was not responded. On her behalf, a pleader notice was issued on 09.05.2012. As no reply was received, she filed the writ petition, of which order is impugned in this appeal. 4. The opposite party - HPCL opposed such unilateral surrender on the ground that all the legal heirs of original Lessor had not joined to express their unwillingness to continue with the lease agreement. On the other hand, before expiry of the lease period, the Lessee HPCL had communicated to renew the lease on 07.11.2010 and as per the lease agreement the legal heirs of the Lessor were bound to renew the same as no breach of any of the conditions of the lease was noticed. 5. Learned Single Judge, considering all the contentions urged and perusing the documents, has recorded the finding that there was no valid service of any such intention of the Lessee for renewal of lease prior to the expiry of the term and for that the right accrued for renewal of the lease had been lost and could not be enforced. Accordingly he passed the impugned order for vacation of leasehold land. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Gauttam Mukherji submitted that the finding of the learned Single Judge as to non-service of written request by the Lessee to renew the lease prior to expiry of term of lease is not correct and the learned Single Judge had not considered the decisions referred to in the impugned order in proper perspective. 7. Per Contra, Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment on the grounds stated therein. 8. The lease deed was registered on 08.09.1993 but the commencement date was from 01.01.1991. Twenty years had to elapse on 31.12.2010. The Lessee has stated to have communicated the renewal option on 07.11.2010 as per counter affidavit of opposite party. The copy of the said letter was annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-B/1. It was addressed to Sri Jasbir Singh, the original Lessor. But there is no dispute that said Jasbir Singh had expired on 30.03.2009. There is nothing to show that such letter of Lessee was served or communicated to the legal heirs of the original Lessor. The copy of the said letter was annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-B/1. It was addressed to Sri Jasbir Singh, the original Lessor. But there is no dispute that said Jasbir Singh had expired on 30.03.2009. There is nothing to show that such letter of Lessee was served or communicated to the legal heirs of the original Lessor. This being the factual position, which has been considered by learned Single Judge, we are unable to differ from the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge. The renewal right was not exercised by the Lessee before expiry of the terms of the lease. On this score, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant is not hold good. 8-(a). Lease Agreement is to be honoured by the parties, so also its renewal clause. Contractual documents are to be interpreted on the commonsense principle of ordinary life. The commonsense view relating to the implication and impact of the contractual conditions is the relevant consideration for interpreting a term of document so as to achieve temporal proximity of the end result. 8-(b). The decision relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation vs. Dolly Das reported in (1999) 4 SCC 450 relates to the fact that option of renewal was exercised prior to end of the expiry period and for that their Lordships have held that "when the High Court has chosen to exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, we cannot say that the discretion exercised in entertaining the petition is wrong." 8-(c). In the decision Hindustan Petroleum Corporation vs. Ali Jafaar and Ors. reported in ( 2003) 3 ALD 463 the renewal was refused while the HPCL had exercised option under the provision of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Both the cases are distinguishable from the facts of the case at hand. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that those decisions are not helpful to the contention of the Lessee - opposite party. 9. In view of above analysis of facts and law, we find that the Lessee - HPCL had not exercised option of renewal prior to the expiry of term and the learned Single Judge was justified to pass the impugned order giving direction for vacating the disputed premise. 10. 9. In view of above analysis of facts and law, we find that the Lessee - HPCL had not exercised option of renewal prior to the expiry of term and the learned Single Judge was justified to pass the impugned order giving direction for vacating the disputed premise. 10. In our considered opinion, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. Finding of facts are in accordance with the materials placed in the writ petition. Hence no interference is called for. Accordingly the writ appeal stands dismissed.