Summary
The Court directed BPCL to surrender leased petrol-pump premises within three months and pay market rent from expiry of the lease until delivery. Binding three-judge precedent excluded tenant-protection benefits where actual possession had been given to a dealer or licensee. The High Court’s reason for relegating the owner to another remedy therefore failed. The amount of market rent was reserved for later determination on supporting submissions, and costs of Rs.1 lakh were awarded.
Issues
- Whether BPCL could invoke tenant protection despite possession being with its dealer and thereby defeat relief in writ jurisdiction.
- What possession, rent and costs directions should follow.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(4), Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act, 1921The binding interpretation requiring actual physical possession governed the materially identical dealer arrangement and defeated the claimed tenant protection. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaAlternative remedy and an asserted factual dispute did not warrant refusing relief in the circumstances, given the controlling precedent and similar dealership agreement. (¶¶ 8, 9, 12, 13, 18, 19)
Held
- A factual dispute raised by a party does not invariably require relegation from writ proceedings to a suit. The High Court’s decisive concern was the then-pending appeal on tenant protection; that impediment disappeared when the three-judge decision upheld the relevant view. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
- The Court was bound by the three-judge ruling that tenants who had let, sub-let or given the building to dealers or licensees, without retaining actual physical possession, could not claim the Act’s protection. The materially identical agreement with BPCL’s dealer attracted that ruling. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
- Continued occupation without rent after lease expiry was unbecoming of the State corporation. BPCL had to deliver peaceful vacant possession within three months and pay market-rent arrears from 31 December 2009 until delivery. (¶¶ 20, 21)
- The market-rent amount was not fixed in this judgment: determination was postponed for three weeks, with both sides required to submit supporting documents and written submissions within two weeks. BPCL also had to pay the owner Rs.1 lakh costs. (¶¶ 22, 23)
Result
Appeal allowed and disposed of with vacant possession directed within three months, market rent from 31 December 2009 until delivery, and Rs.1 lakh costs. Market-rent quantification deferred for three weeks; supporting submissions due within two weeks. Pending applications disposed of.