SUBHASH CHANDER & ORS. versus M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.(BPCL) & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 8 S.C.R. 108 · Decided: 28-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY RASTOGI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
108
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 8 S.C.R.
[2022] 8 S.C.R. 108
108
SUBHASH CHANDER & ORS.
v.
M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.(BPCL) &
ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 7517 of 2012)
JANUARY 28, 2022
[AJAY RASTOGI AND ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.]
Haryana (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 – Burmah
Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings) Act, 1976 – ss. 3, 5, 7 and 11 –
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Suit for possession by the appellant
– Maintainability of, before the Rent Controller under the 1973 Act
or the jurisdiction of the civil court – Property owned by the
predecessor in interest of the appellant, leased out to M/s Burmah
Shell Company for 20 years – Renewal option for another 20 years
was availed – However, before the expiry of the initial lease period,
the Central Government enacted Burmah Shell (Acquisition of
Undertakings) Act, 1976 and took over the rights of the lessee and
transferred the same to the respondent-government company in
exercise of its power under the Act 1976 – After expiry of lease
period, notice served on the respondents for terminating the tenancy
and thereafter, suit for possession filed by the appellant against the
respondent for vacating the suit property – Trial court held that the
appellants were entitled for the restoration of possession of the suit
land – In appeal thereagainst, it was held that the civil court has no
jurisdiction to try the suit and respondents are in possession of the
suit property as statutory tenant and can be evicted from the suit
property only under the provisions of the Act 1973 – High Court
upheld the same – On appeal, held: By virtue of the statutory
enactment of Burmah Shell Act, 1976, the pre-existing tenancy rights
held by Burmah Shell with the appellants vested with the Central
Government and by virtue of s. 7, the said rights in turn stood vested
in the respondents-government company and they statutorily became
the tenant of the appellants – Jurisdiction of a civil court is impliedly
barred from the field covered specifically by the provisions of the
Act 1973 and that being the complete code determining the rights
of a tenant/landlord to the exclusion of the other laws – Therefore,
no error committed by the High Court in holding that even after the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
109
expiry of the lease term of the lease deed, the respondents became
a statutory tenant and jurisdiction of the civil court is impliedly
barred and could be evicted only under the provisions of the Act
1973.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. By virtue of the statutory enactment of Burmah
Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings) Act, 1976, the pre-existing
tenancy rights held by Burmah Shell with the appellants stood
transferred and vested with the Central Government and
thereafter by operation of Section 7, the said rights in turn stood
transposed and vested in the Government Company (Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Ltd.) as the Government Company
statutorily became the tenant of the appellants/plaintiffs. [Para
19][117-F-G]
2. Even if the lease period is determined by forfeiture under
the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, still the tenant continues to
be a tenant that is to say that there is no forfeiture in the eyes of
law and the tenant becomes liable to be evicted and the forfeiture
comes into play only if he has incurred a liability to be evicted
under the State Rent Act and not otherwise and further held that
even after the expiry of the period of contractual tenancy, the
tenant can be evicted only in terms of provisions of the State
Rent Act which is applicable in reference the subject property in
question. [Para 20][119-C-E]
3. A perusal of the scheme of the Act 1976 would show that
from the appointed day, right, title and interest of Burmah Shell
with effect to Section 5(1) stood transferred and vested with the
Central Government and by virtue of Section 7(2), the vesting of
tenancy rights with the Central Government stood further
transposed and vested in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And
that became a statutory tenant by virtue of Section 7(3) of the
Act. To that extent, Section 11 of the Act has an overriding effect
to the provisions of other laws. That being so, the jurisdiction
indeed of a civil Court is impliedly barred from the field covered
specifically by the provisions of the Haryana (Control of Rent &
Eviction) Act, 1973 and that being the complete code determining
the rights of a tenant/landlord to the exclusion of the other laws,
SUBHASH CHANDER & ORS. v. M/S BHARAT

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