Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 626 (RAJ)

Subodh Dhussa v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

2024-04-18

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2024
ORDER : Mr. Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 may be directed to vacate the land in question at the earliest. A prayer has also been made for directing the respondent-Corporation to clear the dues of the petitioner, if any. 3. Briefly noted the facts of the writ petition are that the petitioner vide a lease agreement dated 26.04.2004 leased out a land situated at Khasra No.260 of Village Shivbari, Tehsil and District Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as 'the land in question') to the respondent-Corporation for a period of nineteen years and seven months. The respondent-Corporation established a Retail Outlet-cum-Petrol Pump on the said land. After expiry of period of nineteen years and seven months, neither fresh agreement was entered between the parties nor the time period mentioned in the lease agreement was extended. The petitioner requested and represented to the authorities of the Corporation to vacate the leased land and handover the peaceful possession of the same to the petitioner. Since the same has not been done, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the terms and conditions of the lease agreement, submits that the land was leased out to the respondent-Corporation for a term of nineteen years and seven months commencing from 21st March, 2004 and since the period has not been extended, therefore, the respondent-Corporation is under an obligation to handover the peaceful possession of the land in question to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that as per the term used in Clause (j) of the lease agreement "this lease will be automatically and without any further act of the parties hereto be renewed" has been substituted by subsequent correction deed dated 31.10.2018 by substituting that in sub para (j) of Para I "will be automatically" by "may be" and, therefore, he submits that since no extension has been granted to the respondent-Corporation, therefore, the respondent-Corporation was duty bound to vacate the land in question leased out to them and hand over the peaceful possession of the same to the petitioner. He submits that despite multiple representations submitted to the respondent-Corporation, they have not vacated the land and handed over the peaceful possession of the same to the petitioner. He submits that despite multiple representations submitted to the respondent-Corporation, they have not vacated the land and handed over the peaceful possession of the same to the petitioner. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the respondent-Corporation may be directed to vacate the lease property and hand over the peaceful possession of the same to the petitioner. 5. Per contra, Shri. Vinay Kothari, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that normally the language used in the lease agreement is such that "it does not exceed a period of 20 years" as any stipulation in the agreement beyond 20 years entails a huge expenditure towards the stamp duty and, therefore, as per the standard language, the lease agreement is formulated in this fashion. Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation, however, very fairly submits that the correction deed was/were entered into between the parties on 31.10.2008 and the necessary corrections as reflected in the correction deed were made. Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation is not in a position to show any document, whereby, the period beyond nineteen years and seven months has been extended by the petitioner in favour of the respondent-Corporation. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that as per consent letter signed by the petitioner on 25.06.2003, the petitioner agreed for leasing out the land in question to the respondent-Corporation for a period of thirty years. 7. Learned counsel submits that the Corporation has invested huge amount on building and infrastructure etc. for the purpose of operation of a retail outlet. 8. Learned counsel submits that the Corporation has further leased this petrol pump to one Sumit Petroleum who is currently operating the petrol pump. Therefore, Sumit Petroleum is a necessary party in the matter. 9. He further submits that the respondents-Corporation have also preferred a suit before learned trial Court for not dispossessing them from the leased out land and the same is pending consideration before learned trial Court, wherein the application for ad-interim temporary injunction has been rejected. In these circumstances, learned counsel prays that the writ petition being devoid of force may be dismissed. 10. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the relevant record of the case. 11. In these circumstances, learned counsel prays that the writ petition being devoid of force may be dismissed. 10. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the relevant record of the case. 11. The undisputed facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner and the respondent-Corporation entered into a lease agreement dated 26.04.2004, wherein, the petitioner agreed for leasing out the land in question for a period of nineteen years and seven months commencing from 21st March, 2004. It is also an admitted fact that the period of nineteen years and seven months was not extended by the petitioner and no fresh lease agreement was entered into between the parties. In these circumstances, in normal course, the respondent-Corporation was under an obligation to vacate the land leased out to them and hand over the peaceful possession of the same to the petitioner. However, on the strength of letter written by the petitioner on 25.06.2003, the Corporation is trying to hold the possession over the land in question for a period of thirty years. In the opinion of this Court, the letter dated 25.06.2003 was prior to the lease agreement entered into between the parties and, therefore, the terms and conditions which have been agreed upon between the petitioner and the Corporation by the lease agreement, will be taken into consideration for all intents and purposes and any correspondence prior to that, is of no consequence and, therefore, the respondent-Corporation cannot retain the leased out area on the strength of the letter dated 25.06.2003 written by the petitioner. 12. As per the terms and conditions of the contract particularly Clause (j) after the expiry of a period of nineteen years and seven months, the petitioner is entitled to take back the possession of the leased out area. For brevity, Clause J of the lease agreement reads as under :- "(j) Provided Always And It Is Agreed And Declared that the expiration of the said term of 19 years 8 months, this lease will be automatically and without any further act of the parties hereto be renewed upto ____from the expiration of last mentioned term give to the Lessors one calendar month's previous notice of their intention not to take any renewed lease". 13. 13. The argument of learned counsel for the respondent that the Corporation has further sub leased the property in question to Sumit Petroleum for operation of the petrol pump and the same is being run by Sumit Petroleum and, therefore, Sumit Petroleum is a necessary party is noted to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner has neither authorized nor he has written any clause in the lease agreement for running the petrol pump by Sumit Petroleum and, therefore, the lis between the petitioner and the respondent-Corporation is governed by the terms and conditions agreed upon between them vide lease deed dated 26.04.2004. Since the petitioner is not concerned with the sub lease of the area in question by Indian Oil Corporation to Sumit Petroleum, thus, he is not a necessary party. 14. It is also informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the dealership agreement between Sumit Petroleum and the Corporation has also come to an end five years prior to the filing of the present writ petition and the same has not been renewed so far, therefore, lookedat from that angle also, the impleadment of Sumit Petroleum in the present proceedings will not make any difference in the present case. 15. Lastly, the pendency of the suit filed by the respondent-Corporation is also having no bearing in the present proceedings as the petitioner has filed this writ petition only on the ground that as per the lease agreement after the expiry of period of nineteen years and seven months, the respondent-Corporation is required to hand over the peaceful possession of the leased out area to the petitioner and since the same has not been handed over, therefore, the writ proceedings have been undertaken by the petitioner. The undisputed facts demonstrate that after expiry of nineteen years and seven months, as per the lease agreement dated 26.04.2004, the period has not been extended, therefore, the respondent-Corporation is under an obligation to hand over the peaceful possession of the land in question to the petitioner. 16. In view of the discussions made above, the present writ petition merits acceptance and the same is allowed. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 - Indian Oil Corporation Ltd is directed to hand over the peaceful possession of the land in question to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today. 16. In view of the discussions made above, the present writ petition merits acceptance and the same is allowed. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 - Indian Oil Corporation Ltd is directed to hand over the peaceful possession of the land in question to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today. It is made clear that if any dues as per the lease agreement are required to be paid by the respondent-Corporation to the petitioner, the same will be paid within a period of six weeks from today. 17. The stay application and other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.