Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited vs R. Chandramouleeswaran and Others

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. The amendments and modifications made by the Amendment Acts of 1972 and 1973 whereby sub-clause (b) to Section 2(4)(ii) of the Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act, 1921 was added with retrospective effect, the proviso to Section 12 was deleted with retrospective effect and the amendments to Section 9 were made with retrospective effect, have to be read holistically and in entirety, for it is a well-known canon of construction that every section of a statute is to be construed with reference to the context and other sections of the statute, so as, as far as possible, to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute. By these amendments, the tenants excluded from the benefit/privilege of the Act vide the proviso to Section 12 were brought within the ambit of the protection and rights given under the Act but with different conditions and stipulations. In other words, sub-clause (ii)(b) to section 2(4) is restricted and applies to only those tenants who were covered by the proviso to Section 12 and not those tenants who were already entitled to protection and rights under the Act. This is clear from the latter portion of sub-clause (ii)(b) to Section 2(4) of the Act which refers to the proviso to Section 12 and also a decree for declaration or possession or similar relief passed against the person on the ground that proviso to Section 12 had disentitled such persons from claiming rights under the Act. The amendment made by adding sub-clause (b) to Section 2(4)(ii) vide the Amendment Act, 1973 was not to dilute or impose new conditions on the tenants who were otherwise entitled to protection as tenants under Section 2(4)(i) or to Section 2(4)(ii)(a) of the Act read with Sections 3, 4 and 9 of the Act. This also flows from the legislature using the word ‘continues in possession’ in sub-clause (ii)(a) to Section 2(4), whereas the words used in sub-clause (ii)(b) are ‘continues in actual physical possession’. The legislature deliberately has used different words in sub-clauses (ii)(a) and (ii)(b). The enactment of sub-clause (ii)(b) has to be read with other amendments made vide the Amendment Acts of 1972 and 1973 and would accordingly apply to those tenants who were brought under the umbrella and protection of the Act by deleting the proviso to Section 12. Therefore, sub-clause (ii)(b) to Section 2(4) would apply to tenants who were covered by the deleted proviso to Section 12, whereas sub-clause (ii)(a) to Section 2(4) would apply to tenants who had taken land on lease without any written registered instrument relating to the ‘erection of buildings’. [Para 15][453-C-H; 454A-B]

2. This Court holds as under:

(i) Sub-clauses (i) and (ii)(a) to clause (4) of Section 2 of the Act apply to all tenants who had entered into oral or unregistered written agreements or registered written agreements without any stipulation with regard to ‘erection of buildings’ for taking land on lease, and had subsequently constructed buildings. Such tenants would be entitled to protection of the Act provided the tenant satisfies the conditions mentioned in sub-clauses (i) or (ii)(a) to clause (4) of Section 2 of the Act.

(ii) Paragraph 1 of sub-clause (ii)(b) to clause (4) of Section

2 of the Act applies to tenants who are not entitled to the rights under the Act by reason of the proviso to Section 12 which stood deleted vide the Amendment Act, 1972. Paragraph 2 of the said sub-clause applies to cases where a decree of declaration or decree or an order of possession or similar relief has been passed against a tenant on the ground that the proviso to Section 12, which was omitted by the Amendment Act, 1972, disentitles the tenant from claiming rights under the Act. Accordingly, sub-clause

(b) to Section 2(4)(ii) would apply only to tenancies which were earlier excluded from the protection under the Act vide the proviso to Section 12 which stands deleted with retrospective effect vide the Amending Act, 1972.

(iii) Sub-clause (ii)(c) to clause (4) of Section 2 states that heirs of a tenant referred to in sub-clause (i) or sub-clauses (ii)(a) or (ii)(b) would be entitled to benefit of the Act. However, it expressly excludes a sub-tenant or heirs of the sub-tenant. [Para 21][457-D-H; 458-A-B]

3. Recording the aforesaid position, this Court dismisses the present appeals by the appellant, that is, the three petroleum companies, and uphold the orders passed by the High Court that the appellant tenants would not be entitled to the benefit and rights under the Act unless they are in actual physical possession of the building constructed by them. In other words, 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 Act. [Para 22][458-B-C]

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Nirmala and Another [C.A.No. 5903 of 2006 dated 03.12.2021]; P. Ananthakrishnan nair and Anr. v. Dr. G.

Ramakrishnan and Anr. (1987) 2 SCC 429; S.R.

Radhakrishnan and Others v. Neelamegam (2003) 10 SCC 705 – relied on.

N. Vajrapani Naidu v. New Theatres Carnatic Talkies Ltd., Coimbatore [1964] 6 SCR 1015; Haridas

Girdhardas and Others v. Varadaraja Pillai and Anr. (1971) 2 SCC 601; Swami Motor Transports (P) Ltd and Another v. Sri Sankaraswamigal Mutt and Anr. [1963] Supp 1 SCR 282; Dr. K.A. Dhairyawan and Others v. J.R. Thakur and Others [1959] SCR 799; Raghbir Singh Gill v. Gurcharan Singh Tohra and Others [1980] SCR 3 1302 – referred to.