The Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs K. Bagavathi Ammal

S. Nagamuthu, J.—The petitioner is the first defendant in O.S. No. 909 of 1996, on the file of the learned I Additional District Munsif,

Tirunelveli and the appellant in C.M.A. No. 28 of 2003 on the file of the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli. The respondent is

the plaintiff in the suit and the respondent in the appeal. The petitioner challenges the order dated 07.10.2004 made in C.M.A. No. 28 of 2003,

confirming the order of the learned I Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli, dated 22.10.2003 made in I.A. No. 192 of 2001 in O.S. No. 909 of

1996.

The facts of the case are as follows:

Admittedly, the respondent/plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. M/s. Caltex (India) Limited, an English Company entered into a lease

agreement on 28.07.1971 with the respondent for the purpose of running a petrol bunk, by engaging a Dealer. Subsequently, the said company

was amalgamated with the petitioner Company namely, the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., and the petitioner continued to be the lessee

running a petrol bunk on the suit property through its Dealer. The lease period got expired on 27.07.1994. Thereafter, a notice was issued by the

respondent on 22.02.1995 to the petitioner company u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property terminating the lease and demanding surrender of

possession. Since the petitioner did not surrender possession of the property to the respondent, the respondent has filed the above suit for

recovery of possession, for arrears of rent and also for mean profits.

On making appearance in the suit, the petitioner has filed I.A. No. 192 of 2001, u/s 9 of the Chennai City Tenants� Protection Act, 1921,

seeking a direction from the learned I Additional District Munsif, to the landlord namely, the respondent herein to sell the suit property to the

petitioner at a price to be fixed by the Court as per the provisions of the said Act.

The respondent, in the counter filed in the I.A., has mainly raised the following three contentions:

(i) The petitioner who was not in actual physical possession of the property is not entitled for relief u/s 9 of the said Act.

(ii) The building constructed on the suit property was put up by the land lord and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for relief u/s 9 of the said

Act.

(iii) Since the lease itself got expired in the year 1994, the petitioner�s continued possession in the capacity of tenant in holding over does not

entitle him for therelief u/s 9 of the said Act.

In the Interlocutory Application, evidence was let in by both sides before the lower Court. The learned I Additional District Munsif, ultimately,

on appreciating the facts and law dismissed the I.A., holding that the building was constructed by the landlord/respondent and therefore, the

petitioner is not entitled for the relief; the petitioner who is not in actual physical possession, as admittedly the petrol bunk is run only by a Dealer, is

not entitled for the said relief u/s 9 of the Act and the petitioner who continued to be in possession as a Tenant in holding over after the year 1994

is not entitled for the relief. Thus, the learned District Munsif answered all the three questions in favour of the respondent.

Challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli in C.M.A. No. 28

of 2003. The learned Subordinate Judge concurred with the findings of the lower Court on all the three questions and ultimately, dismissed the

appeal by order dated 07.10.2004. Challenging the same, this revision has been filed.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Counsel for the respondent.

At the outset, the learned Counsel for the respondent fairly concedes that the third question is not in his favour as the Hon�ble Supreme Court

has held in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Another Vs. N.R. Vairamani and Another, . that a tenant in holding over is also entitled for

relief u/s 9 of the Act, provided he satisfies the other conditions. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the respondent would fairly concede that the

order of the lower Court need not be sustained in so far as the third point is concerned.

So far as the findings of the Courts below on the question whether the petitioner who is not in actual physical possession of the Property, as

admittedly the petrol bunk is being run only by a Dealer, is entitled for the relief u/s 9 of the Act, the finding of the lower Court has got to be

confirmed in view of the settled law. After referring to various Judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, this Court has held in 2007 (1) CTC 67

Malini Parthasarathy v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. that the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., who is running the business through

a dealer is not entitled for the relief since the said Company will not fall within the definition of �Tenant� as defined in Section 2(4) (ii)(b) of the

Tamil Nadu City Tenants� Protection Act, 1921. The view expressed by the learned Judge in the said Judgment squarely applies to the facts of

the present case also. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner is not a tenant as defined u/s 2(4)(ii)(b) of the said Act and so, the

Courts below were right in dismissing the I.A., holding that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief u/s 9 of the Act.

So far as the other question namely, whether the building on the property was constructed by the landlord or the tenant, I am not able to re-

appreciate the evidence available on record which has been appreciated by two Courts below. The learned Counsel for the petitioner is not able to

convince me as to how on facts, the Courts below have erred in appreciating the facts. It is not in controversy that u/s 9 of the Act, the tenant will

be entitled to purchase only the land and not the building. Section 2(2) defines �Land� which does not include buildings. Therefore, the Courts

below were right in holding that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief since the building was constructed on the suit property by the

landlord/respondent.

In view of the above factual and legal positions, I do not find any merit in the revision warranting interference with the orders of the Courts

below. In the result, the order passed by the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge dated 07.10.2004 made in C.M.A. No. 28 of 2003, is

confirmed. The civil revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P is closed.