Summary
Landowners sought possession from BPCL after expiry of the original lease and its single renewal. Because the rented land was admittedly governed by Haryana rent legislation, the Court held that expiry did not make the protected tenant a trespasser or permit eviction through an ordinary civil suit. The Burmah Shell acquisition law’s vesting and renewal provisions did not exclude that protection. The landowners’ appeal was dismissed.
Issues
- Whether the civil court could entertain eviction proceedings after expiry of BPCL’s renewed lease where the Haryana rent statute applied.
- Whether the acquisition statute’s overriding clause displaced the rent-control remedy.
Provisions considered
- Sections 3, 5, 7 and 11, Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1976Vesting transferred the leasehold and tenancy rights to the Government and then BPCL; the overriding provision did not displace applicable rent protection after contractual expiry. (¶ 16-21)
- Sections 2(h) and 13, Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973The protected tenant continuing after termination could be evicted through the statutory mechanism; ordinary civil jurisdiction over the eviction dispute was impliedly excluded. (¶¶ 17, 19-21, 25)
Held
- The property’s location in the relevant municipal area and applicability of the Haryana statute were undisputed. Acquisition transferred the pre-existing tenancy and enabled the renewal exercised by BPCL; the renewed contractual term had expired. (¶ 16-18)
- Expiry or determination of the contractual lease did not itself remove protection under the applicable rent statute. Eviction required a case under that statute, and the civil court’s jurisdiction over this field was impliedly barred. The acquisition law’s overriding effect did not give the landlords a different eviction route. (¶¶ 19-21, 25)
- Cases concerning a claimed second renewal or the duty to grant a renewal addressed different issues. Recognising continued statutory protection did not confer another contractual renewal. The separate secured-creditor proceedings were expressly outside this controversy. (¶¶ 14, 22-25)
- The Court found no error in directing the landlords to the rent-control remedy and dismissed the appeal. It did not order eviction or decide that any particular statutory ground for eviction was established. (¶ 25-27)
Result
Appeal dismissed; civil jurisdiction over the eviction suit held impliedly barred. Eviction must be sought under the applicable Haryana rent legislation.