BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED versus R. CHANDRAMOULEESWARAN AND OTHERS

Citation: [2020] 3 S.C.R. 436 · Decided: 28-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
436
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED
v.
R. CHANDRAMOULEESWARAN AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 2870 of 2007)
JANUARY 28, 2020
[N. V. RAMANA, SANJIV KHANNA AND
KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act, 1921 – s.9 – The rights
of tenants in terms of – The appellants-Three oil companies had
under different written registered lease deeds with the landlords
taken land on long-term lease and had thereupon constructed petrol
pumps that were given to and operated by the dealers appointed by
the appellant under the dealership agreements – The respondents-
landlords filed suits for ejectment for recovery of possession of the
land – Thereafter, the appellant had filed applications purportedly
u/s. 9 of the Act for transfer/sale of the leasehold land in whole or
in part at the price fixed by the Court – The applications were
rejected by the High Court – On appeal, held: The appellant-tenants
would not be entitled to the benefit and rights under the Act unless
they are in actual physical possession of the building constructed
by them – In other words, in case the appellants have let out or sub-
let the building or given it to third parties, including dealers or
licensees, they would not be entitled to protection and benefit under
the Act – The orders passed by the High Court upheld.
Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act, 1921 – Sub-clauses (i)
and (ii) (a) to Cl.4 of s.2 – Applicability of – Held: Sub-clauses (i)
and (ii)(a) to clause (4) of s. 2 of the Act apply to all tenants who
had entered into oral or unregistered written agreements or registered
written agreements without any stipulation with regard to ‘erection
of buildings’ for taking land on lease, and had subsequently
constructed buildings – Such tenants would be entitled to protection
of the Act provided the tenant satisfies the conditions mentioned in
sub-clauses (i) or (ii)(a) to clause (4) of s.2 of the Act.
Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act, 1921 – Sub-clause (ii)(b)
to Cl.4 of s.2 – Applicability of – Paragraph 1 of sub-clause (ii)(b)
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 436
436
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
437
to clause (4) of s.2 of the Act applies to tenants who are not entitled
to the rights under the Act by reason of the proviso to s.12 which
stood deleted vide the Amendment Act, 1972 – Paragraph 2 of the
said sub-clause applies to cases where a decree of declaration or
decree or an order of possession or similar relief has been passed
against a tenant on the ground that the proviso to s.12, which was
omitted by the Amendment Act, 1972, disentitles the tenant from
claiming rights under the Act. Accordingly, sub-clause (b) to s.2(4)(ii)
would apply only to tenancies which were earlier excluded from the
protection under the Act vide the proviso to s.12 which stands deleted
with retrospective effect vide the Amending Act, 1972.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The amendments and modifications made by the
Amendment Acts of 1972 and 1973 whereby sub-clause (b) to
Section 2(4)(ii) of the Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act, 1921
was added with retrospective effect, the proviso to Section 12
was deleted with retrospective effect and the amendments to
Section 9 were made with retrospective effect, have to be read
holistically and in entirety, for it is a well-known canon of
construction that every section of a statute is to be construed
with reference to the context and other sections of the statute,
so as, as far as possible, to make a consistent enactment of the
whole statute. By these amendments, the tenants excluded from
the benefit/privilege of the Act vide the proviso to Section 12
were brought within the ambit of the protection and rights given
under the Act but with different conditions and stipulations. In
other words, sub-clause (ii)(b) to section 2(4) is restricted and
applies to only those tenants who were covered by the proviso to
Section 12 and not those tenants who were already entitled to
protection and rights under the Act. This is clear from the latter
portion of sub-clause (ii)(b) to Section 2(4) of the Act which refers
to the proviso to Section 12 and also a decree for declaration or
possession or similar relief passed against the person on the
ground that proviso to Section 12 had disentitled such persons
from claiming rights under the Act. The amendment made by
adding sub-clause (b) to Section 2(4)(ii) vide the Amendment Act,
1973 was not to dilute or impose new conditions on the tenants
who were ot

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.