NATIONAL COMPANY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER versus THE TERRITORY MANAGER, BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2021] 11 S.C.R. 75 · Decided: 11-11-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Disposed off

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
75
NATIONAL COMPANY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
PARTNER
v.
THE TERRITORY MANAGER, BHARAT PETROLEUM
CORPORATION LTD. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 6726 of 2021)
NOVEMBER 11, 2021
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1972: s. 9 – Protection
under, to tenant – Entitlement of – Held: Tenants would not be entitled
to the benefit and rights under the Tenants Act unless they are in
actual physical possession of the building constructed by them – In
case the tenants 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 Tenants Act – On facts,
though the lease agreement expired, respondent no. 1-tenant not
vacating the land – High Court in writ petition filed by the appellant-
owner seeking direction to the respondent to vacate the property,
erred in denying the relief to the appellant on the ground of
protection granted under the Tenants Act – Issuance of direction to
respondents to vacate the said premises and handover peaceful and
vacant possession to the appellant, alongwith the payment of arrears
of market rent.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Having noted that to get the benefit under
Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1972,
the petroleum company should be in actual possession of the
land and since they were not in actual possession, they were not
entitled to protection under Section 9 of the Tenants Act, the
Division Bench in the impugned judgment stopped at granting
relief in favour of the appellant only on the ground that the view
of the Division Bench in R. Ravikiran case was subject matter of
appeal in a batch of Special Leave Petitions/Appeals pending
before this Court. It could thus clearly be seen that the Division
Bench itself did not find much favour with the arguments
advanced on behalf of the respondent No.1-BPCL with regard to
[2021] 11 S.C.R. 75
75
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
76
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
non-exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India on the ground of availability of alternate remedy and
declined the relief only on the ground that the view taken by the
other Division Bench in the case of R. Ravikiran case and other
matters, was pending consideration before this Court in a batch
of appeals and Special Leave Petitions. [Para 11, 12][84-E-H;
85-A-B]
1.2 This Court has upheld the orders passed by the High
Court that the appellant tenants would not be entitled to the
benefit and rights under the Tenants Act unless they are in actual
physical possession of the building constructed by them. The
position is amply made clear by observing that 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 Tenants Act. [Para 16][88-G-
H; 89-A]
1.3 The agreement between the respondent No.1-BPCL
and the respondent No.2 has been perused. All the agreements
between the respondent No.1-BPCL and its dealers are identical.
As such, when a Bench of three judges of this Court in the case
of R. Chandramouleeswaran case, while considering a similar
agreement  between the appellant-BPCL and the dealer, has held
that since the appellant tenant was not in actual physical
possession, it was not entitled to the protection under the Tenants
Act, the said view is bound even in the facts of the instant case.
[Para 18][89-B-D]
1.4 The view taken by the High Court, thereby relegating
the appellant to the alternate remedy available in law, is not
sustainable. [Para 19][89-D-E]
1.5 The High Court observed that the conduct of the
respondent No.1-BPCL in continuing with the occupation of the
said premises without paying any rent from 31st December, 2009
is unbecoming of a statutory corporation, which is a State within
the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. While
directing the respondents to vacate the said premises and
handover peaceful and vacant possession to the appellant, it would
also be necessary in the interests of justice to direct the
respondent No.1-BPCL to pay arrears of market rent from 31st
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
77
December, 2009, till the date of delivery of possession at the
market rate, thus, are directed accordingly. [Para 20][89-E-F]
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. R.
Chandramouleeswaran and Others (2020) 11 SCC 718
: [2020] 3 SCR 436 – relied on

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