Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Factual matrix of the respective civil miscellaneous appeals/original side appeal/revision are as follows:

C.M.A.No.2797/2006 :- M/s.Caltex Oil Refining India Ltd. entered into a lease agreement with the owner of the premises bearing Door No.85, Old No.15/18, Sir Thiyagaraja Road, Chennai 600 017, for the purpose of putting up a petroleum outlet. The lease agreement was executed on 22.06.1959. The lease was initially for a period of five years with effect from 01.05.1959 and it was later renewed periodically up to 30.04.1979. The lessee after constructing a building, canopy and other facilities, opened the outlet. Caltex Oil Refining India Ltd. was taken over by the Government of India and it was later transferred to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., [hereinafter referred to as HPCL]. The landlord issued a lawyer's notice dated 28.04.1982, calling upon HPCL to vacate and deliver possession besides claiming damages from 01.05.1979. This was followed by a civil suit in C.S.No.598/1983 filed by the landlord praying for a decree for recovery of possession. In the said suit, HPCL filed an application bearing No.3891/1984 under Section 9 of the City Tenants' Protection Act for a direction to the landlord to sell the suit property to them. The application was contested by the landlord. The matter was later transferred to the IV Additional Fast Track Court and the suit was registered as O.S.No.4570/1997. The interlocutory application filed by HPCL was renumbered as I.A.No.43/2005. In the meantime, the property was purchased by the present owner from the original plaintiff. The application submitted by HPCL under Section 9 of the City Tenants' Protection Act was dismissed by the lower Court as per order dated 12.07.2006. The said order was challenged before the High Court in C.M.A.No.2797/2006. This Court as per Judgment and Decree dated 24.11.2006, dismissed the appeal by confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court. The Special Leave petition filed by the Corporation was taken up by the Supreme Court along with similar other matters and ultimately, the order of this Court was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

8.The landlord in the meantime, filed another suit in O.S.No.3590/1982 before the City Civil Court, Chennai against HPCL praying for a decree of possession. In the said suit, HPCL filed an application in I.A.No.12457/1982 under Section 9 of the City Tenants' Protection Act. The City Civil Court, Chennai by way of order dated 21.12.1983, held that HPCL is entitled to purchase the property under Section 9 of the City Tenants' Protection Act and appointed an Advocate Commissioner to determine the land value and to fix the compensation. The said order was challenged before this Court in C.M.A.No. 336/1987. The landlord has also filed an appeal in A.S.No.113/1991 challenging the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.3590/1982. The High Court as per Judgment and Decree dated 09.10.2006, allowed the appeal filed by the landlord and dismissed the appeal filed by HPCL under Section 9 of the City Tenants' Protection Act. The said judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court by way of special leave petition. The SLP which was later converted as civil appeal, was allowed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.

(ii)By amendment Act 24 of 1973, the legislature found that assignee/ successor in interest were not given the benefit under the Act and therefore, the definition of "tenant" in Section 2(4) was amended so as to introduce for the first time the concept of successor-in-interest or the assignee who had erected building on the demised land and continued in actual physical possession of such land and building. By claiming this protection afforded by the legislature, HPCL filed the petition under Section 9. Since HPCL has not made any construction and as they are not in possession of the land, HPCL cannot make any claim under Section 2(4)(ii)(a) or 2(4)(ii)(b) of the Act.
(vi)The intention of the legislature is very clear that Section 2(4)(ii) is intended to cover only the original tenants.
13(b). The learned senior counsel for the respondent in C.M.A.No.336/1987 would contend thus:-
(i)By virtue of the ESSO Acquisition Act, HPCL became the owner of the property hitherto owned by ESSO Inc. The leasehold rights of ESSO Inc. also devolved on HPCL by virtue of Section 7 of the ESSO Acquisition Act. Therefore, for all practical purposes, HPCL has stepped into the shoes of ESSO Inc. and as such, HPCL was justified in filing an application under Section 9 of the Act.