BHARAT PETROLEUM LTD. AND ANR. versus N.R. VAIRAMANI AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 923 · Decided: 01-10-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

. 
. 
BHARAT PETROLEUM LTD. AND ANR. 
v .. 
N.R. VAIRAMANI AND ANR. 
OCTOBER I, 2004 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Article 226-Writ petition by landlord for eviction of tenant-High 
Court relying on a decision of Supreme Court allowed writ petition-Held, 
benefits available to tenant under Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act 
could have not been diluted in writ petition-Dispute could be more 
effectively decided in an action taken by landlord under Tenants Act-Courts 
should not place reliance on decisions without discussing their factual 
situation in the context of the case in hand-Tpmil Nadu City Tenants' 
Protection Act, 1921-Precedent. 
Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 : 
ss.3 and 9-Premises leased out for commercial use-Structure raised 
A 
B 
c 
D 
by tenant-Tenant's right to purchase rented property to the extent necessary 
E 
for running the business or to claim compensation for the structure-
Guidelines enumerated 
The appellant-tenant came in occupation of the property leased out 
to its predecessor-in-interest, the Burmah Shell. A petrol pump was set 
up on the said property. On expiry of the extended period of lease, the 
tenant made a request for further extension of the lease agreement. A 
writ petition was filed by the landlord before the High Court stating 
that he was not willing to renew the lease and the tenant was liable 
to be evicted. The writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge, 
but allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court holding that since 
no factual controversy was involved, in view of the decision in Hindustan 
Petroleum*, the landlord was entitled to the relief of eviction . 
In the appeals filed by the tenants it was contended that 
the instant matter could not have been agitated in a writ petition 
F 
G 
but in a case instituted under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' H 
923 
924 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
. A 
Protection Act, 1921 and the appellant was entitled to certain benefits 
available to a tenant either under s. 3 or s. 9 thereof; that the High 
Court erred in relying on Hindustan Petroleum* as in that case -no 
provision akin to the one either under s. 3 or s. 9 of the Tenants Act was 
involved. 
B 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In a writ petition some benefits available to the tenant 
under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 could not 
have been diluted. There is some dispute about the entitlement of the 
C 
tenant to get protection under the Tenants Act which can be more 
effectively decided in case action in terms of provisions under the Tenants 
Act is taken by the landlord. (930-E-F) 
D 
J .2. The High Court did not consider the effect of various provisions 
of the Tenants' Act, more particularly, Sections 3 and 9 thereof. Once 
a suit is filed by the landlord for eviction of a tenant, the latter has right 
to apply to the court within one month from the date of the service of 
summons for the issuance of the order directing the landlord to sell the 
whole or part of the extent of land as specified in the application to him 
for a price to be fixed by the court. On making of such an application 
E 
the court is under the mandatory duty to first decide the minimum 
extent of the land "which may be necessary for the convenient enjoyment 
by the tenant". (927-F-G; 930-F-G-H) 
F 
G 
H 
1.3. Section 9 creates a statutory right in favour of the tenant to purchase 
land through the medium of court on the fulfilment of conditions specified 
in the section. It is not an absolute right, as the court has discretion to grant 
or refuse the relief for the purchase of the land. Further, tenant's right to 
secure conveyance is restricted to only such portion of the holding as would 
be necessary for his convenient enjoyment. The tenant has no vested right 
in the property, instead, it is a privilege granted to him by the statute which 
is equitable in nature. (931-C-D-E-F-G-H] 
1.4. The policy underlying Section 9 of the Tenants Act is directed 
to safeguard the eviction of those tenants who may have constructed 
superstructure on the demised land, so that they may continue to occupy. 
the same for the purposes of their residence or business. If the tenant 
does not occupy the land or the superstructure or if he is not residing 
BHARAT PETROLEUM LTD. v. N .R. V AIRAMANI 
925 
therein or carrying on business, the question of convenient enjoyment of A 
the land by him could

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