RAHUL YADAV &ANR. versus M/S. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.AND OTHERS

Citation: [2015] 7 S.C.R. 978 · Decided: 01-07-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 978 
RAHUL YADAV &ANR. 
v. 
M/S. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No.4909 of 2015) 
JULY 1, 2015 
[DIPAK MISRA AND UDAY UM ESH LAUT, JJ.] 
Public distribution system - Dealership of petrol pump 
c - Grant of, in favour of appellant - In terms of the 
advertisement for the dealership, appellant bought land and 
executed long-term lease with the Corporation for 30 years 
at a monthly rent-As per letter of intent, Corporation was to 
provide certain facilities and develop the outlet for operating 
D the dealership - Subsequently, cancellation of dealership 
agreement in favour of appellant-Appel/ant refusing to hand 
over the possession - Eviction proceedings under 1971 Act 
by Corporation against appellant - Eviction order by Estate 
Officer-Appellate Judge as also Single Judge and Division 
E Bench of High Court upholding the eviction - On appeal, 
held: Dealership agreement and lease agreement are 
independent of each other- Appellant, was a dealer under 
the lessee-Corporation - In case there is a termination, 
dealership is bound to be can-celled and, if the lease deed is 
F treated to have been terminated along with the dealership, it 
would lead to a situation which does not flow from the 
interpretation of the instruments- Dealership agreement was . 
terminated because of the decision of this Court -
G Consequence of cancellation of the dealership is a sequitur 
of the judgment - As a result appellant has to vacate the 
premises and Corporation has the liberty to operate 
independently or through another dealer-Appellant cannot 
cause obstruction or create impediments-Appellant cannot 
H 
~8 
RAHUL YADAV &ANR. v. INDIAN OIL CORP. LTD. AND 979 
ORS. 
retain possession on the basis of ownership of the land as A 
the lease is in continuance - He is a trespasser- Thus, the 
provisions of 1971 Act would apply-Appellant directed to 
hand over the peaceful possession of the land and other 
fixtures standing thereon to the Corporation - Public 
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971-
B 
s. 9. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The lease deed lays down that the lessee c 
has the freedom to sublet and appoint another dealer . 
. 
The lease would remain in force till the dealership of the 
appellant continued and the licence remained in vogue. 
Clause 56 of the dealership agreement stipulates that 
.notwithstanding anything to th~ contrary containing o 
before the said clause, the Corporation would be at 
liberty to terminate the agreement forthwith upon any 
time after happening of certain events. On a plain reading 
of the said agreement, it is clear that it has no connection 
whatsoever with the lease agreement. Both the E 
agreements are independent of each other. The appellant 
was a dealer under the lessee, that is, the Corporation. 
The dealership is liable to be cancelled on many a 
ground. In case there is a termination, dealership is 
bound to be cancelled and at that juncture, if the lease F 
deed is treated to have been terminated along with the 
dealership, it would lead to a situation which does not 
flow from the interpretation of the instruments. The 
dealership agreement was terminated because of .. the 
decision in *Mukund Swarup Mishra's case. The G 
consequence of cancellation of the dealership is a 
sequitur of the judgment. The inevitable consequence 
of that is the appellant has to vacate the premises and 
the Corporation has the liberty to operate either H 
980 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A independently or through another dealer. The appellant 
cannot be allowed to cause obstruction or create an 
impediment. The dealership was availed of in an 
inapposite manner. In such a situation, consequences 
are to be faced by the appellant. [Paras 16, 17, 18] [993-
B F; 994-H; 995-A, D-H; 996-A] 
1.2 The respondent is a public sector undertaking. 
The appellant whose dealership has been cancelled, 
cannot claim possession to retain possession on the 
c basis of ownership of the land as the lease is in 
continuance. Therefore, he is a trespasser. Thus, the 
provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of 
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 apply on all fours. 
[Para 19] [996-B-C] 
D 
1.3 It was submitted that as the termination was 
directed by the Corporation by virtue of the judgment of 
this Court and not because of any wrong committed by 
the appellant and thus, his case should be reconsidered 
E for grant of dealership under 

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