Bangalore District Court
Shri.Y.T.Narendra Babu vs The Indian Oil Corporation Limited on 18 November, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH No.19), BENGALURU.
Dated : This the 18 th day of November, 2021.
PRESENT: Smt. S.G.SUNITHA, B.Sc., LL.B.,
VII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
O.S. No. 3396/2018
Plaintiff Shri.Y.T.Narendra Babu,
S/o. Late Y.Thammaiah,
Aged about 57 years, R/at No.3,
Yalemane, I Main, I Stage,
I Cross, West of Chord Road,
Rajajinagar, Bengaluru-560010.
(By Sri.Amaranatha M., Advocate.)
Vs.
Defendants 1. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited,
Represented by its Chief Divisional
Retail Sales Manager,
Bangalore Division, No.29,
P.Kalinga Rao Road,
Bengaluru-560027.
2. M/s. I.B.P. Company Limited,
Represented by its Deputy General
Manager (Marketing) I.B.P.House,
No.34-A, Nirmal Chandra Street,
Calcutta-700013.
3. Smt.K.S.Rashmi Ramesh,
W/o.(not known), Petrol Bunk at
Property No.42/5, Nagadevanahalli,
Kengeri Hobli, Kengeri,
Bengaluru-560056.
2 O.S.No.3396/2018
D1-By Sri.Vighneshwar S.Shastri, Advocate.
D2-By Sri. Praneeth G.N., Advocate.
D3- By Sri. Harisha A.A., Advocate.
Date of institution of Suit 08-05-2018
Nature of the Suit Ejectment and
Mesne Profits.
Date of commencement 14-08-2019
of recording of evidence
Date on which Judgment 18-11-2021
was pronounced
Total duration Years Month Days
03 06 10
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit praying to direct the defendants to deliver vacant possession of suit schedule property to him and also for an enquiry to determine the mesne profits/damages from the date of expiry of lease, till the delivery of possession of suit schedule property i.e., all that piece and parcel of IBP Auto Services Company, Kengeri, Retail Outlet, situated in property bearing khatha No.6079 to 6082, property No.42/5/1 to 42/5-4 of the City 3 O.S.No.3396/2018 Municipal Council, Kengeri, in Sy.No. 42/5, situated at Nagdevanahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Kengeri, measuring East to West 180 feet and North South 181 feet, in all measuring 32,580 sq.ft., bounded on East by private property, West by private property/ road, North by portion of Sy.No.42/5 and South by Road.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case is that, he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and defendants 1 and 2 are the Public Sector Oil Marketing Companies, carrying on business in selling petroleum and petroleum products, through its dealers and wide publications were issued by defendant No.2 inviting land owners to offer their land to the Company for locating the retail outlets and the plaintiff and several land owners agreed to offer their lands. The officials of defendant No.2 inspected the suit schedule property and after satisfying themselves that the land is more suitable, 4 O.S.No.3396/2018 entered into negotiations with the plaintiff for taking the suit schedule property on lease in terms of their Policy Guidelines and to appoint the plaintiff/his nominee as dealer and instructed the plaintiff to file an application for dealership in terms of policy guidelines, with necessary affidavits and Demand Draft for Rs.1,000/- towards application processing fee, etc. As per their instructions, the plaintiff and others went to the Office of defendants at Chennai to submit their applications and they were intimated that, after processing the applications, they will issue Letters of Intent for selection of dealers. Believing the same, the plaintiff and others agreed to lease their lands for dealership at nominal rents and they approached the Statutory Authorities, such as, Deputy Commissioner, Local Police, Fire Department, Revenue Department, KEB, National Highways, PWD, BDA, etc. to obtain 'No Objection Certificate' for locating the petroleum retail outlet on the suit schedule property and also 5 O.S.No.3396/2018 underwent Fire Fighting training and obtained sanctioned plan, trade license and obtained permission under various Statutes, like, The Payment of Wages Act, 1936, The Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, The Minimum Wages Act, 1984, etc. Thereafter, the 2 nd defendant, after obtaining necessary permissions, through the plaintiff, established a retail outlet under the guidance and supervision of the plaintiff and appointed the wife of the plaintiff to operate the retail outlet and executed a Maintenance and Handling (M&H) Contract, which indicates that it is a contract for providing requisite services for maintenance and handling of company operated retail outlet in the suit schedule property, but, in reality, the plaintiff and his wife have deposited a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- with the defendant No.2 as interest fee deposit to run the retail outlet on 90% income of a regular dealer. The plaintiff and his wife have invested more than Rs.20-lakhs to run the retail 6 O.S.No.3396/2018 outlet and invested Rs.5-lakhs to level the suit land invested heavy advances to their employees. The 2nd defendant, either before entering into the agreement or at the time of signing of the agreement, never intimated the plaintiff regarding all the terms of the lease agreement, except stating that they are taking the land on lease on general conditions in terms of the policy for giving dealership. The clauses in the lease deed are incorporated by defendant No.2 itself, unilaterally, without the consent of the plaintiff. The said conditions are arbitrary and were incorporated by defendant No.2 by exercising undue influence against the plaintiff. The defendant No.2 though made assurances and promises that the plaintiff's wife is appointed under the M & H Contract as an interim arrangement to run the retail outlet till the appointment of the plaintiff as the dealer, the same was postponed from time to time and the M & H contract made in favour of the plaintiff's wife was 7 O.S.No.3396/2018 also extended from time to time. The plaintiff further submitted that in the year 2007 he learnt that the defendant No.2 was taking steps for the purpose of giving a go-by to their earlier policy guidelines and adopts a new policy, wherein the retail outlet will be given to a dealer selected in accordance with their own procedures and notifications issued by the Central Government. The plaintiff, challenging the impugned inaction of defendant No.2 in not considering the application filed by the plaintiff for dealership and in not appointing him as the dealer of the retail outlet and also challenging the Notification dated 6-9-2006 and 13-10-2006 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, filed W.P. No.1016/2007 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the Hon'ble High Court, considering the case of the plaintiff, by its Order dated 18-3- 2008, granted an interim order directing the defendant No.2 to continue the present 8 O.S.No.3396/2018 arrangement and in terms of the same, plaintiff's wife has been permitted to run the retail outlet and the 1st defendant was impleaded as a party in the said writ petition on the statement regarding merger of the IBP Co. Ltd., with the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., and taking all legal responsibilities of IBP Co. Ltd., and the 1st defendant became a party in the said writ petition and was paying monthly rents. After hearing the writ petition of the plaintiff and of several similarly situated persons, the Hon'ble High Court, by its Order dated 28-7-2009, allowed the writ petitions with a direction to the defendants to process the application filed by the plaintiff for issuance of dealership, co-terminus with the lease of the lands on which the retail outlets are established. As against the said order, the 1st defendant filed a writ appeal in W.A.No.3248/2009 before the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court, after hearing both the sides, by Judgment and Order dated 9 O.S.No.3396/2018 19-11-2009, confirmed the Order dated 28-7-2009 passed by the Learned Single Judge and dismissed the Writ Appeal. The defendant No.1 filed SLP No.9655/2010 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after granting leave, registered the case as C.A.No. 5258/2013 and after hearing the appeal filed by the defendant No.1 and connected appeals filed by several other land owners, head and by its Judgment dated 8-7-2013 dismissed all the appeals filed by the land owners in the connected cases. However, SLP(C) 9655/2013 and C.A.No.5259/2013 filed by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., against the plaintiff was disposed off by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its Order dated 8-7-2013. But on being mentioned by the advocate on record for the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., SLP (C) 9655/2010 was posted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 16-7-2013 and on that day the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to Order to correct the Judgment by indicating that CA 5259/2013 stands 10 O.S.No.3396/2018 allowed. Thereafter, the defendant No.1, by exercising undue influence and coercion, forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff's wife and the plaintiff from the schedule premises and thereafter defendant No.1 is running a retail outlet in the schedule premises through its agent, on a temporary basis. On account of defendants' arbitrary actions, undue influence in obtaining the suit schedule land on lease for a long period of 15 years, the plaintiff and his wife have suffered a loss to the extent of more than Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per month and because of not appointing plaintiff or his wife as a dealer, the plaintiff's family is put to irreparable loss, substantial injury and are facing serious difficulties for eking their livelihood. In terms of clause-3 of the lease agreement, upon expiry of lease period, the lessee shall remove all the structures, erections, material and whatever property belonging to it, from the schedule premises and shall deliver vacant possession to lessor and in the said lease agreement, 11 O.S.No.3396/2018 the renewal of the lease is subject to mutual consent of the parties. Said clause clearly indicates that after expiry of lease period, the lessee shall handover vacant possession of the schedule property to the lessor. In case the lessor agrees to extent the lease period with mutually agreeable terms, the new lease agreement to be executed by the lessor, then only the lessee has the right to continue on the schedule property as a tenant, in the absence of extension of lease period, the lessee has no right to continue on the schedule property and its possession would be unlawful. It clearly indicates that all the conditions are only in favour of the lessee and it is one sided, unilateral agreement that has been prepared by lessee himself, according to its convenience, by exercising its undue influence and coercion. Hence the lease agreement is arbitrary and it is contrary to law. The plaintiff and his son are in need of schedule property to construct a shopping complex and on several occasions made oral request to 1 st defendant 12 O.S.No.3396/2018 not to allot the schedule property to any LoI holder or any other dealer beyond the period of 15 years stated in the deed and requested the 2 nd defendant to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the schedule property immediately after expiry of 15 years as they are not interested to renew the lease and sent a representation dated 11-4-2017 to the 1 st defendant by registered post acknowledgment due. Even after service of said representation, plaintiff not received any reply. The period of lease has commenced from 1-4-2003 and it would expire on 31- 3-2018. As such, as per clause 6 of the lease agreement, the lease dated 2-6-2003 would expires and the lessee shall vacant and deliver vacant possession of the schedule property to the plaintiff on 31-3-2018. On 3-10-2017 the plaintiff got issued legal notice and intimated that the plaintiff is not interested to renew the lease as the same is required for their bonafide use and occupation and requested to deliver vacant possession on 1-4-2018 without any 13 O.S.No.3396/2018 further delay and further intimated, in case they fail to vacate and deliver the suit schedule property, they are liable to pay damages double the rate of rents prevailing in the said area till actual delivery of vacant possession of the schedule property. The defendants, on receipt of the said notice, sent untenable reply on 11-11-2017. The plaintiff recently learnt that the defendants have allotted the dealership to one Smt.K.S.Rashmi Ramesh. Said action of defendants is highly illegal, as they have no manner of right to continue the suit schedule property, as the terms of lease expired on 31-3-2018 and are liable to deliver vacant possession to the plaintiff on 1-4-2018. Their possession over suit schedule property from 1-4-2018 is illegal as that of trespasser and they have no manner of right to continue in possession or to carry on the business in the schedule property. The defendants are powerful persons and the plaintiff as an individual, is not possible for him to take possession, except 14 O.S.No.3396/2018 approaching this Court for decree as prayed. Hence, this suit for the reliefs mentioned supra.
3. On issuance of suit summons, the defendants No.1 to 3 appeared through their respective counsels. The defendants No.1 and 2 filed their written statement and defendant No.3 filed her written statement on the same line as that of the written statement filed by the defendants 1 and 2.
4. The case of the defendants No.1 to 3, as stated in their written statement is that the suit filed by the plaintiff is false and frivolous and has been filed on imaginary cause of action and it is an abuse of process of court. The suit is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed in limine. The defendant No.2 now merged with defendant No.1 in the year 2007 and as per the merger agreement, the defendant No.1 has power to represent defendant No.2 also. The subject Company Owned Company Operated (Hereinafter referred as COCO) was commissioner by 15 O.S.No.3396/2018 defendant No.2 in the year 2002. The COCO site was taken on lease from Sri.Y.T.Narendra Babu for 15 years by defendant No.2 effective from 1-4-2003 as per the lease deed executed on 2-6-2003. The lease is valid till 31-3-2018. At the time of full merger of defendant No.2 with defendant No.1 Company, the subject COCO was being operated by the M and H contractor Smt.Hemamalini, the wife of the plaintiff. The contract with M and H expired on 30-6-2007. The land owner filed W.P.1058/2007 and obtained an interim order for continued supply of petroleum products. Said writ petition was allowed by Order dated 28-7-2009 in W.P. No.1016/2007 and connected cases. Against the said orders, defendant No.1 filed SLP Case No.(C) 9655/2010 and it is converted as Civil Appeal 52328/2013 and said appeal has been allowed by Order dated 16-7-2013. The land owner has filed a Review Petition No.2269/2013 and said petition is dismissed on 31-10-2013. Consequent to the allowing of appeal filed by defendant No.1 by the Hon'ble 16 O.S.No.3396/2018 Supreme Court, the defendant No.1 had terminated the M and H contract with Smt.Hemamalini and taken over the outlet. They further submit that the outlet was run on adhoc dealership basis upon taking over from 2013 up to September 2017. Letter of appointment was issued to the pending LOI holder, defendant No.3, selected under SC(W) category, dealership agreement was executed on 21-9-2017 and the subject COCO was handed over to the defendant No.3. Presently the retail outlet is being operated under the name and style 'M/s.Vajrakaya Petroleum.' The plaintiff has executed registered lease deed in favour of defendant No.2 which was merged with defendant No.1. Clause 9 of said lease deed states that, "if the lessee shall be desirous of renewing this present lease and of such desire given to the lessor not less than 3 months notice prior to the expiration hereof and shall duly absorbed and performed all the terms and conditions hereof the lessor shall grant to them a renewal lease of the said 17 O.S.No.3396/2018 premises for a further period of 15 years at mutually agreeable terms and fresh document may be executed by the lessee and the lessor for the further extension of the lease". The defendant No.1 has communicated intent to renew the lease on mutually agreeable terms and conditions to the land owner vide letter No.IOC/BDO/RS/48 dated 5-10-2017 and 29-12-2017 as per the above referred clause. It is not in dispute that the defendant No.1 has performed as per the terms of the lease deed. Therefore, the defendant No.1 is entitled to renewal as a matter of right. Since the plaintiff has not replied to the letters issued by the defendant No.1, there is a tacit acceptance from the plaintiff for the renewal of lease. The Corporation is guided by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas Polices, which are issued from time to time and the defendant No.1 is duty bound to follow the same. The plaintiff is educated, having worldly knowledge, executed the lease deed understanding the contents. The petroleum retail 18 O.S.No.3396/2018 outlets are set by defendant No.1 are not only catering to the needs of the public, but also contribute to the development of the cites and towns. The outlet which is questioned now is selling the petrol and diesel and meeting the requirements of people of Vishweshwaraiah Layout and other customers who travel from Kengeri to Magadi Road. These defendants have completed the construction of retail outlet by investing huge amount and the outlet is presently operated by Smt.Rashmi Ramesh who was awarded the dealership under social objective category. If the suit is decreed as prayed by the plaintiff, the defendants will be put to huge loss and hardship, in addition to defeating the purpose of Government's ambitious program to uplift the socially deprived community. The defendant No.1 is entitled to counter claim of specific performance. The prayer of the defendant No.1 for the specific performance for the renewal of the lease deed for a further period of 15 years at the 19 O.S.No.3396/2018 cost of defendants may be decreed. The defendant No.1 is ready to pay the court fees on the same. Therefore, the defendant No.1 prays that the suit of the plaintiff may be dismissed and the prayer of the defendant No.1 may be granted in the interest of justice and equity.
5. Based on these pleadings, this Court has framed the following Issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants have no manner of right to continue to be in possession of suit schedule property in pursuance of the terms of lease expired on 31-3-2018?
2. Whether the plaintiff further establishes that on 11-4-2017 he made a representation to the 1 st defendant requesting them not to allot the dealership to any other person beyond the lease period?
3. Whether defendants prove that plaintiff has executed registered lease deed in favour of 2nd defendant which was merged with defendant No.1 and as per clause-9 of the said lease deed, lessee shall be desirous of renewing this present lease?20 O.S.No.3396/2018
4. Whether an enquiry with regard to mesne profit/damages has claimed by plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property against defendant is necessary?
6. What Order or Decree?
6. The plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked as many as 13 documents as per Exs.P1 to P13.
The Chief Manager (RS), Bangalore DO and Constituted Attorney, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Karnataka State Office, who is the constituted attorney of 1st defendant and also competent to swear on behalf of defendant No.2 got examined himself as DW.1 and got marked 3 documents as per Exs.D1 to Ex.D3.
7. I have carefully scrutinized entire records before me and heard the arguments.
21 O.S.No.3396/2018
8. My findings on the above Issues are:
Issue No.1: Does not arise for consideration, Issue No.2 : Does not arise for consideration, Issue No.3 : In the Affirmative, Issue No.4 : Does not arise for consideration, Issue No.5 : As per Final Order below, for the following:
REASONS
9. Issue No.3: Since Issue No.3 being vital Issue, the same is taken first for consideration.
10. It is seen that in Ex.P5 and Ex.P6- certified copy of Judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No.1016/2007, defendant No.1 herein was impleaded as a party and W.A.No.3248/2009 was filed by Defendant No.1 herein against the plaintiff herein wherein Order in W.P.No.1016/2007 was re- affirmed that respondents are directed to process the application filed by petitioners or their nominees for issue of dealership co-terminus with lease of 22 O.S.No.3396/2018 land, on which retail outlets are established. The said Order was challenged by the defendant No.1 herein before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by filing S.L.P. by the Defendant No.1 herein, which was converted to Civil Appeal No.5228/2013 and said Appeal was allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by Order dated 16-7-2013. Said Order copy has not been produced before this Court. On that Order, the plaintiff had filed Review Petition No.2269/2013 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed by Order dated 31-10-2013. Said Order copy is also not produced before this Court. From the above Orders, it is seen that Defendant No.1 was considered as party to Writ Petition and Civil Appeal, as defendant No.2 had merged with Defendant No.1 in the year 2007 as per the Merger Agreement Though the said document has not been produced before this Court, in the Civil Appeal No.5228/2013 which was allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by Order dated 16-7-2013, it can be assumed to be 23 O.S.No.3396/2018 true, though plaintiff opposes the merger of Defendant No.2 with Defendant No.1. Hence, the contention of plaintiff that he had not executed the registered lease agreement in favour of Defendant No.1 holds no water, as by merger, the Defendant No.1 had acquired right and was carrying out the functions of Defendant No.2 and the lease agreement by the plaintiff in favour of Defendant No.2 continued without any hindrance even with Defendant No.1.
11. Meanwhile, the plaintiff filed W.P. No. 1016/2007 to direct the Respondents, who are the defendants 1 and 2 herein, to consider the application filed by Petitioners/nominees for issue of regular dealership/appoint petitioners or nominee as dealer.
It is to be noted here that, in view of the merger, the lease agreement was in continuance under Defendant No.1 even at the time of litigations as 24 O.S.No.3396/2018 stated above. Further, by issuing Ex.D2 dated 5-10-2017 and Ex.D3 dated 29-12-2017 to the plaintiff, as per Ex.P9 clause(9), wherein 3 months prior notice was mandatory to be issued by the lessee to the lessor for further renewal of lease term for another 15 years on fresh document by mutually agreeable terms. As Defendants No.1 and 2 wanted to renew the lease deed and to know the reply of the plaintiff, but no reply was given by the lessor/plaintiff herein for both the notices, wherein defendants No.1 and 2 had called for to inform as to the terms and conditions of renewal and to take further action and also Ex.P13 dated 28-6-2018. Hence, as there was no reply by the plaintiff as to notices by defendant No.1, it was considered as tacit/implied acceptance by the plaintiff for renewal of lease, as he had duty to speak and as he has not performed the same. Hence, the contention of plaintiff that he had issued Ex.P7-Legal Notice dated 3-10-2017 intimating that he was not interested in continuing the defendant No.1 after expiry of 15 years 25 O.S.No.3396/2018 lease term and under Ex.P12 dated 11-4-2017, prior intimation was given to vacate and deliver vacant possession of schedule premises after expiry of lease period. Though, in his cross-examination, DW1 has admitted as to Exs.P7 and P12 and reply sent by defendants No.1 and 2, which is Ex.P8, it does not entitle the plaintiff to say that there was no renewal of lease deed and he had intimated defendant No.1 of the same, holds no water. As plaintiff had no authority to issue legal notice as per Ex.P9, it was only to be on ground of breach or violation of any terms. Hence, the contention of plaintiff that Ex.P9 was executed on the assurance that he/his nominee would be alloted dealership and on that basis, defendants No.1 and 2 had taken possession of land on lease, for nominal rent and plaintiff or his wife were not alloted dealership and allotment was in favour of Defendant No.3, is violation of terms of Ex.P9, holds no water. Though in his cross-examination DW1 has admitted that Ex.P9 was prepared by them and plaintiff was told to sign, 26 O.S.No.3396/2018 without giving a copy and the rent paid was nominal and now the schedule place would fetch more rent as it is valued more than Rs.50/- per square feet and it is surrounded by commercial buildings, as no undue influence or coercion has be proved by the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff, relying on Clause 1.2.2 in Ex.P1 which states that "as to appointment of dealership, that it would be done with the candidate who was found suitable & on successful negotiation & after obtaining approval of competent authority letter of intent will be issued in favour of land owner as per existing policy and and after completion of all formalities landowner/his nominee will be appointed dealer and retail outlet commissioned", is alleging breach of term by the defendant 1 and 2 in not allotting the dealership. It is to be noted here that defendant No.1 is guided by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas policies, which are issued from time to time and defendant No. is duty bound to follow the same and the outlet was run on Adhoc dealership 27 O.S.No.3396/2018 basis, upon taking over from 2013 upto September 2017. Further, Letter of Appointment was issued to the pending LOI holder Defendant No.3 selected under SC(w) category and Dealership Agreement was executed on 21-9-2017 and subject COCO was handed over to Defendant No.3, presently it is being operated under name and style "M/S Vajrakaya Petroleum".
12. Hence, the act of defendant No.1 in allotting the Letter of Appointment to Defendant No.3 is as to the procedure and guidelines issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas policies. Hence it is not a breach or violation of any term of Ex.P9 or Ex.P1, as contented by plaintiff.
13. Hence, for the above reasons , it is held that the registered lease deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of 2nd defendant got merged with defendant No.1 and as per Clause-9 of the said lease deed, Defendant No.1, who is Lessee, be desirous of 28 O.S.No.3396/2018 renewing this present lease. Hence, I answer this Issue No.3 in the Affirmative.
14. Issues No.1, 2 and 4 : In view of for my findings on Issue No.3 in the Affirmative, these Issues No.1, 2 and 4 do not arise for consideration, hence, they are answered accordingly.
15. Issue No.5 : In view of my findings on Issues No.1 to 4, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Suit of the Plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
Parties to bear their own cost.
Draw Decree accordingly.
*** (Dictated to the J.W on Computer and print out taken thereof is revised, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court today the 18 th day of November 2021).
(S.G.SUNITHA) 29 O.S.No.3396/2018 VII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiff:
PW.1 : Y.T.Narendra Babu Witness examined on behalf of Defendants:
DW.1 : Sri.Deepak Singhal Documents marked on behalf of Plaintiff:
Ex.P1 Notarized copy of the policy
guidelines dated 8.10.2002
Ex.P2 Notarized copy of plaintiff's
application dated 10.1.2003
Ex.P3 Notarized copy of affidavit dated
11.1.2003
Ex.P4 Revised offer letter dated 14.1.2003
Ex.P5 Certified copy of judgment passed in
W.P.No.1016/2007 by Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka
Ex.P6 Certified copy of Judgment passed in
W.A.No.3248/2009 by Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka
Ex.P7 Office copy of legal notice issued to
1st defendant Corporation dated
3.10.2017
Ex.P7(a) Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P7(b) Postal receipt
Ex.P8 Reply notice dated 11.11.2017
Ex.P9 Certified copy of lease deed dated
2.6.2003
30 O.S.No.3396/2018
Ex.P10 Letter addressed to 1st defendant by
plaintiff on 26.1.2018 requesting to vacate and handover vacant possession of the suit schedule property Ex.P11 Remittance through E-payment Ex.P12 Office copy of the representation given by plaintiff to the defendants Oil Corporation Ex.P12(a) Postal receipt for having sent the representation through RPAD on 11.4.2017 Ex.P13 Letter issued by 1st defendant to the plaintiff Ex.P13(a) Copy of the postal cover for having sent the same through speed post Documents marked on behalf of Defendants:
Ex.D1 General Power of Attorney (marked on perusal of original General Power of Attorney) Ex.D2 Office copy dated 5-10-2017 Ex.D3 Office copy of letter dated 29-12-2017 (S.G.SUNITHA) VII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.