LexM/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER versus ATM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2023] 16 S.C.R. 859 : 2023 INSC 1042 859 CASE DETAILS M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER v. ATM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 7890 of 2023) NOVEMBER 30, 2023 [VIKRAM NATH AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in dismissing the application fi led by the appellant u/Or.VII r.11(d) CPC for rejection of the subsequent suit fi led by the respondent-owner for damages for use and occupation of the property after expiry of the lease period. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. VII r. 11(d) – Application under – First suit fi led by the respondent for possession without claiming any damages for use and occupation – Subsequent suit fi led only for claiming damages for use and occupation of the property after expiry of the lease period – Application u/Or. VII r. 11(d) fi led by the appellants- defendants for rejection of the said plaint – Maintainability: Held: Suit for possession and suit for claiming damages for use and occupation of the property are two diff erent causes of action – There being diff erent consideration for adjudication, the second suit fi led by the respondent claiming damages for use and occupation of the premises was maintainable – Respondent is the absolute owner of the property in dispute – Lease of the property in favour of the appellants by the predecessors-in- interest of the respondents expired in 1997 – After a prolonged litigation, the possession was handed over to the respondent after 25 years – First suit was fi led seeking possession of the property – No claim was made regarding mesne profi ts – Subsequent suit was fi led claiming damages for use and occupation of the property from 1998 onwards – Thus, the application fi led by the appellants for rejection of the plaint was rightly dismissed by the courts below – Cause of action. [Paras 16, 17] 860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 16 S.C.R. LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES Virgo Industries (Eng.) Private Limited v. Venturetech Solutions Private Limited (2013) 1 SCC 625: [2012] 7 SCR 933 – distinguished. Ponnammal v. Ramamirda Aiyar and two others, ILR (1915) XXXVIII 829; Sadhu Singh etc. v. Pritam Singh, Etc. ILR (1976) 1 P&H 120; Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal, AIR 1964 SC 1810:[1964] SCR 831; Ram Karan Singh v. Nakchhad Ahir AIR 1931 All 429, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Sudera Realty Pvt. Ltd. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1161: 2022 INSC 926, Ram Karan Singh and others v. Nakchhad Ahir and others, AIR 1931 Allahabad 429; Raptakos Brett and Company Limited v. Ganesh Property (2017) 10 SC 643 – referred to. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED ORDER AND APPEARANCES CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.7890 of 2023. From the Judgment and Order dated 07.01.2021 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in ANO No.1633 of 2020. Appearances: V. Giri, Sr. Adv., Parijat Sinha, Ms. Pallak Bhagat, Ms. Reshmi Rea Sinha, Ms. Suveni Bhagat, Advs. for the Appellant. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., M. A. Chinnasamy, Mrs. C. Rubavathi, M. Veeraragavan, C. Raghavendren, V. Senthil Kumar, Ch. Leela Sarveswar, Devendra Pratap Singh, Advs. for the Respondent. JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT RAJESH BINDAL, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 07.01.2021 passed by the High Court1, vide which the application fi led by the appellants/ 1 High Court of Judicature at Madras 861 defendants under Order VII Rule 11(d) C.P.C. in the suit2 fi led by the respondent-plaintiff , was dismissed. 3. Briefl y, the facts as available on record are that the respondent- plaintiff is presently the absolute owner of the property in dispute. It was originally owned by T. Padmanabhan, T. Sethuraman and T. Gopinath. At that time, M/s Burma Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company of India Ltd. had taken the property on lease with eff ect from 01.01.1958 for the purpose of erecting pump service and fi lling station for storage of petrol, diesel and carrying on business in such products for a period of twenty years by entering a lease deed dated 08.01.1958. The said Company was the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants-defendants. The property was put to public auction owing to default in repayment of the loan availed by the owners. The same was purchased by Mrs. S. Bharwani in the auction. Sale deed was registered in her favour on 24.06.1978. The respondent-plaintiff had purchased the property from Mrs. S. Bharwani. Finally,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.