Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.34 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And ... vs N.R. Vairamani And Anr on 1 October, 2004
28. Besides, the right to acquire the property has already been concluded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and another Vs. N.R.Vairamani and another [(2004) 8SCC 579], whereby it is held that Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921, confers an additional statutory right on a tenant against whom suit for ejectment is filed to exercise an option to purchase the demised land to that extent only which he may require for convenient enjoyment of the property. The right conferred by Section 9 is a statutory right to purchase land and it does not create any interest or right to the property, instead it is a privilege granted to him by the statute which is equitable in nature. In the present case, when the landlord has not even filed a suit and in the interregnum the lease stood expired on 30.04.1992 itself and that the NOC and licence granted to the Corporation and its dealer also stood cancelled by the respondents 1, 5 and 3, besides, the Corporation has also suspended the sale of petroleum products from 28.12.2015 to M/s.Sri Renuga Agencies, it is not open to M/s.Sri Renuga Agencies to argue on behalf of the Corporation that they have got a right under Section 9 of the Act, when they have no locus-standi to continue to operate the petroleum retail outlet in the land in question.
Section 116 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Chennai City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 [Entire Act]
C. Albert Morris vs K. Chandrasekaran & Ors on 26 October, 2005
In my view, the said contention cannot be sustained, as the said issue has already been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in C.Albert Morris's case (cited supra), whereby, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with a similar and identical issue under Rules 153(1)(i)&(ii) and 144, held that the right to site can exist only when the tenant is in lawful possession of the land in question. For better appreciation, paragraph Nos.42 and 43 thereof are extracted below:-
The Esso (Acquisition Of Undertakings In India) Act, 1974
M. C. Chockalingam & Ors vs V. Manickavasagam & Ors on 31 October, 1973
43. In our opinion, any right which the dealer has over his site was the right which he had acquired in terms of the lease. When that lease expired and when the landlord declined to renew the same and also called upon the erstwhile tenant to surrender possession, the erstwhile lessee could no longer assert that he had any right to the site. His continued occupation of something which he had no right to occupy cannot be regarded as source of a right to the land of which he himself was not in lawful possession. As observed by this Court in the case of M.C. Chockalingam & Ors. Vs. V. Manickavasagam & Ors. (supra), litigious possession cannot be regarded as lawful possession. As rightly pointed out by the Division Bench of the High Court the right referred to in this Rule has necessarily to be regarded as right which is in accordance with law and the right to the site must be one which is capable of being regarded as lawful.
In the light of the above, since, in the case on hand, the lease stood expired on 30.04.1992 itself, which is 25 years ago, and that the termination notice was also served on the petitioners on 19.03.2001 itself, the Corporation, without there-being any NOC or licence to run the petroleum outlet, could no longer assert that they have any right to the site, therefore, they do not have any right to run the petroleum outlet in the land in question.
1