Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.87 seconds)Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ... vs Dolly Das on 13 April, 1999
10. The learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the late landlady is the original owner of the land in question, which she leased out to the Corporation in the year 1975 for a period of five years from 1-4-1975 to 31-3-1980. Thereafter, the landlady extended the lease in favour of the Corporation by another ten years from 1-4-1980 to 31-3-1990. It may be noted that during the currency of the second lease period, the landlady died leaving behind her, her three sons and two daughters, namely Petitioner Nos. 8 and 12. After the expiry of the second lease period, the Corporation requested the sons of the landlady for extension of the lease period by another ten years, and on their refusal to do so, the Corporation unilaterally and without entering into any formal lease deed with the sons of the late landlady or the petitioners, extended the lease period by another ten years from 1-4-1990 to 31-3-2000, and despite expiry of the said period, the Corporation has neither paid the rents from the month of October, 1987 to the petitioners nor delivered vacant possession of the premises to the petitioners and continued to illegally squat on the property. The petitioners submit that they being legal heirs of the late landlady and her sons, are entitled to seek eviction of the Corporation from the premises in question, and they are entitled to maintain writ petition when there are no disputed questions of fact involved and all the facts stand admitted, and in support of this submission, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Dolly Das. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Corporation having entered into the property in question under the garb of a lease in the year 1975 and despite expiry of the authorized second lease period and the purported statutory lease period, they are still continuing in the premises without paying any rents, despite producing strict proof of their relationship and legal heirship to the late landlady, and on the contrary are requesting them to renew the lease for another period of 20 years on mutually agreed terms. The continuance of the Corporation in the premises without paying any rents and squatting over the property even after expiry of the successive lease periods, according to the petitioners, is illegal and arbitrary. The learned Counsel submitted that the Corporation being a Government of India Undertaking should be fair and reasonable in its dealings. He, submitted that a learned Single Judge of this Court in similar facts situation and against this very Corporation, allowed W.P.No. 21004 of 2000, filed by the landlords, by his order dated 5-7-2001, and directed the Corporation to vacate the premises, and though a writ appeal was filed thereagainst by the Corporation, no stay way granted by the Division Bench, and the Corporation has also delivered vacant possession of the premises to the landlords therein.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976
State Of Bihar And Others vs Jain Plastics And Chemicals Limited on 21 November, 2001
11. The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation vigorously contended that inasmuch as the Corporation having entered the premises in question under a lease deed executed by the late landlady, and is continuing therein even after the expiry of the extended lease periods, they have attained the status of a tenant at sufferance, and if at all, the petitioners are desirous of having them evicted from the land in question, the only remedy available to them is to approach the competent Civil Court and file suit for eviction, and merely because the tenant (Corporation) is a Government of India Undertaking, the learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioners cannot be permitted to avoid the procedure established by law, and allowed to maintain the writ petition for eviction of the Corporation, and more particularly when the writ petition raises disputed questions of fact, and in support of this contention, the learned Standing Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd, .
Smt. Dolly Das vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ... on 11 August, 1993
16. It may be noticed that a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 21004 of 2000, vide his judgment dated 25-7-2001, in relation to this very same Corporation, having considered the self-same question as is involved in this writ petition in the light of the judgments of the Orissa High Court in Smt. Dolly Das v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, , the judgments of the Apex Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Dolly Das (supra), Union of India v. Hariram Shamji Thakker, 1974 UJ (SC) 562 and Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, (2002) 2 SCC 465, held:
Article 300A in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 5 in The Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976 [Entire Act]
The Chairman, Railway Board & Ors vs Mrs. Chandrima Das & Ors on 28 January, 2000
16. It may be noticed that a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 21004 of 2000, vide his judgment dated 25-7-2001, in relation to this very same Corporation, having considered the self-same question as is involved in this writ petition in the light of the judgments of the Orissa High Court in Smt. Dolly Das v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, , the judgments of the Apex Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Dolly Das (supra), Union of India v. Hariram Shamji Thakker, 1974 UJ (SC) 562 and Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, (2002) 2 SCC 465, held:
1