Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1972: s. 9 – Protection under, to tenant – Entitlement of – Held: Tenants would not be entitled to the benefit and rights under the Tenants Act unless they are in actual physical possession of the building constructed by them – In case the tenants 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 Tenants Act – On facts, though the lease agreement expired, respondent no. 1-tenant not vacating the land – High Court in writ petition filed by the appellantowner seeking direction to the respondent to vacate the property, erred in denying the relief to the appellant on the ground of protection granted under the Tenants Act – Issuance of direction to respondents to vacate the said premises and handover peaceful and vacant possession to the appellant, alongwith the payment of arrears of market rent.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Having noted that to get the benefit under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1972, the petroleum company should be in actual possession of the land and since they were not in actual possession, they were not entitled to protection under Section 9 of the Tenants Act, the Division Bench in the impugned judgment stopped at granting relief in favour of the appellant only on the ground that the view of the Division Bench in R. Ravikiran case was subject matter of appeal in a batch of Special Leave Petitions/Appeals pending before this Court. It could thus clearly be seen that the Division Bench itself did not find much favour with the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent No.1-BPCL with regard to non-exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground of availability of alternate remedy and declined the relief only on the ground that the view taken by the other Division Bench in the case of R. Ravikiran case and other matters, was pending consideration before this Court in a batch of appeals and Special Leave Petitions. [Para 11, 12][84-E-H; 85-A-B]
1.2 This Court has upheld the orders passed by the High Court that the appellant tenants would not be entitled to the benefit and rights under the Tenants Act unless they are in actual physical possession of the building constructed by them. The position is amply made clear by observing that 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 Tenants Act. [Para 16][88-GH; 89-A]
1.3 The agreement between the respondent No.1-BPCL and the respondent No.2 has been perused. All the agreements between the respondent No.1-BPCL and its dealers are identical. As such, when a Bench of three judges of this Court in the case of R. Chandramouleeswaran case, while considering a similar agreement between the appellant-BPCL and the dealer, has held that since the appellant tenant was not in actual physical possession, it was not entitled to the protection under the Tenants Act, the said view is bound even in the facts of the instant case. [Para 18][89-B-D]
1.4 The view taken by the High Court, thereby relegating the appellant to the alternate remedy available in law, is not sustainable. [Para 19][89-D-E]
1.5 The High Court observed that the conduct of the respondent No.1-BPCL in continuing with the occupation of the said premises without paying any rent from 31st December, 2009 is unbecoming of a statutory corporation, which is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. While directing the respondents to vacate the said premises and handover peaceful and vacant possession to the appellant, it would also be necessary in the interests of justice to direct the respondent No.1-BPCL to pay arrears of market rent from 31st December, 2009, till the date of delivery of possession at the market rate, thus, are directed accordingly. [Para 20][89-E-F]
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. R.
Chandramouleeswaran and Others (2020) 11 SCC 718 : [2020] 3 SCR 436 – relied on.
C. Albert Morris v. K. Chandrasekaran and Others (2006) 1 SCC 228 : [2005] 4 Suppl. SCR 779;
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and another v. Dolly Das (1999) 4 SCC 450; Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. R. Ravikiran and Others 2011 (5) CTC 437; ABL International Ltd. and Another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others (2004) 3 SCC 553; S.R. Radhakrishnan and Others v. Neelamegam (2003) 10 SCC 705 : [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 987; Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Nirmala and Others (2020) 11 SCC 738 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.