Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs Ajay Bhatia

HELD: 1.1 From the averments in the plaint, it is patently clear that there were two plots of land, Plot No. 4/4 being the suit property which was inherited by the Respondent from his grandmother ‘RB’ and Plot No. 4/5, an adjacent Plot, which fell in the share of other legal representatives of ‘RB’. It is alleged that the said adjacent plot of land is also in the unauthorised occupation of the Appellant. The existence of a cause of action and/or, in other words, the existence of circumstances giving cause for initiation of action is imperative for initiation of a suit. A suit can only be entertained when the cause of action has arisen and not otherwise. Any future event does not constitute cause of action. The cause of action is the fact or bundle of facts which would be necessary for the plaintiff to plead and prove, in order to get a judgment of the Court in his favour. The cause of action is the expiry of the lease of the suit property, that is Plot No.4/4 and refusal of the Appellant to vacate the suit property in spite of request, and the consequential liability of the Appellant to the Respondent, to pay damages for wrongful occupation and/or mesne profits for wrongful occupation. From the tenor and style of the plaint, it is absolutely clear that the suit was filed only in respect of Plot No.4/4, initially let out to CALTEX, which had merged into Appellant and where a retail outlet was being operated under the name and style of M/s Azadpur Service Station. The suit property did not include Plot No. 4/5 which belongs to other legal representatives of ‘RB’. The owners of Plot No. 4/5 had not even joined as Plaintiffs in the suit. The plaint proceeds on the basis of a lease executed in favour of CALTEX predecessor in interest of the Appellant, which according to the plaintiff, had expired in June 2003. [Paras 14, 15, 17 & 18][534C-F; 535-H; 536-A-C]

1.2 There is a plethora of documents on record to show that two separate petrol pumps/retail outlets were being run on two contiguous plots, one of which was initially run by CALTEX, which later merged into the Appellant and the other by ESSO, which later merged into the Appellant. There was no connection between CALTEX and ESSO. It is also admitted that one of the plots have gone to the share of some other descendants of the original owner. It is clear that the decree is not executable against Plot No. 4/5. The Respondent is liable to restore the possession of Plot No.4/5 to the Appellant. The Executing Court would have to appoint a Local Commissioner to demarcate and hand over Plot No.4/4 to the Respondent. The suit was in respect of Plot No. 4/4. The mesne profits and/or damages were awarded in respect of wrongful occupation of Plot No. 4/4. There can be no doubt that the verdict of the Trial Court has assumed finality in respect of Plot No. 4/4. The Respondent is entitled to possession of Plot No. 4/4. The Respondent is also entitled to mesne profits at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month from 1st March 2006, as directed by the High Court to make over, till the date on which the Appellant offered possession of Plot No. 4/4 to the Respondent. [Paras 44-47][542-C-G]

1.3 The question is whether the Respondent can take possession of any part of Plot No. 4/5 or any other plot in execution of the decree in suit being C.S.(O.S.) No.1828 of 2006 which is only in respect of Plot No. 4/4. The answer to the aforesaid question is obviously in the negative. Order 7 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure mandates that where the subject matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identify it, and in case such property can be identified by boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement or survey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries or numbers. There could be no doubt that a decree should not to the extent practicable be allowed to be defeated. At the same time, a decree can only be executed in respect of the suit property if the suit property is easily identifiable. The extent of the suit property would have to be determined by the Executing Court, as a question relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. [Paras 48, 49 and 51][542-H; 543-A-B, D-E]

1.4 The Respondent is undoubtedly entitled to mesne profits. The mesne profit at the rate directed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court will have to be computed afresh, taking into account all relevant factors. The contention of the Intervener that M/s Tej Service Station is located over two adjacent plots, Plot No.4/5 admeasuring 112x60 sq. ft. being part of Khasra No. 403/90 leased by ‘RB’ and another plot admeasuring 142x60 sq. ft. being part of Khasra No. 66 of Village Azadpur belonging to the Delhi Government requires consideration. This Court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that part of the land belongs to the Delhi Government for which Appellant is paying Revenue to the Delhi Government. [Paras 52, 53-55][543-E-F; 544-C-E]

1.5 The Appeal relating to the SLP (C) No.20718 of 2021 and the Appeal relating to SLP (C) No.20737 of 2021 are allowed. The impugned judgment and order is set aside. The Executing Court shall decide the Execution Applications and all related applications afresh, in the light of the observations made above by appointing a Revenue Officer as Local Commissioner to demarcate Plot No. 4/4 and make over possession of the said plot to the Respondent. Any excess land of which possession may have been taken, whether of Plot No.4/5 or any land belonging to the Delhi Government shall be restored to the Appellant. The mesne profits as directed by the Trial Court shall be computed in terms of the decree of the Trial Court, as modified by the High Court, i.e., with effect from 1st March 2006 till relinquishment by the Appellant of possession of the suit property. [Para 56][544F-G] Pratibha Singh v. Shanti Devi Prasad (2003) 2 SCC

330 : [2002] 4 Suppl. SCR 406 – referred to.