(Prayer in W.P.No.22359 of 2023 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.48,74,30,399.6/- (inclusive of GST) being the arrears of unpaid rent of the share of the petitioner in the schedule property and to vacate the schedule property by handing over vacant possession.

Prayer in W.P.No.46463 of 2025 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to cancel the license of respondent No.3 to run and operate a Petrol pump at No.87, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai – 600 035 and consequentially direct respondent No.3 to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the aforestated premises.)

Common Order:

These two Writ Petitions are connected to each other and as such, are disposed of by this common order.

2. W.P.No.22359 of 2023 is filed by A.Padma Manohar, with a prayer directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.48,74,30,399.6 ps as the arrears of unpaid rent by the respondent namely, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited.

3. The Writ Petition is filed on the ground that the petitioner, along with others, purchased the property from the erstwhile owners namely, one Usha Devi, Nagaraj and Shankar by a sale deed registered as Doct.Nos.2527/1995, 2528/1995, 2529/1995, 2530/1995, 2531/1995, all dated 03.05.1995 and Doct Nos.2039/1995, 2040/1995 and 2041 of 1995, all dated 23.03.1995. Thereafter, no rent whatsoever has been paid. The property is utilised as a retail petroleum outlet by the respondent Corporation. The total extent of property of 18,268 Sq.ft. The property is situate at S.No.111, T.S.No.11/1, Block No.4, Guindy village on the G.S.T Road (Anna Salai), which is the prime property. The calculation is made by taking into account the prevalent rental value and by giving due increment as per the calculation made by the Public Works Department in respect of the rent by the public bodies. The incremental value has been fixed and a total rental areas is arrived at Rs.48,74,30,399.6 ps. Even even after demand, the respondent Corporation has not paid the same and therefore, this Writ Petition is filed.

4. W.P.No.46463 of 2025 is filed with a prayer directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to cancel the license granted to the third respondent namely, the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited to operate a petrol pump at No.87, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai – 600 035 which is the aforementioned property and for a consequential direction to the third respondent to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the aforesaid premises. This Writ Petition is filed on the ground that it is settled law that when the third respondent Corporation has entered into a lease for a period of 15 years, which is said to have been entered in the year 1974, expired long back even before the purchase of the petitioners and even the vendors of the petitionesr were requesting them to vacate from the property, the third respondent, being the public sector undertaking, cannot squat over the property. The license has to be cancelled and they are liable to be directed to handover the possession of the property.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., rep. by its Regional Manager, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, Egmore, Chennai Vs. Devaraj Chordia and Ors. (2005 (2) CTC 401). Therefore, it is prayed that the prayers have to be granted.

6. Per contra, Mr.M.S.Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel for the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, would submit that it can be seen that the petitioners have purchased various extents of land in respect of the property, of which, there are no coherent boundaries which are described in their respective sale deeds and it is difficult to ascertain who is the landlord in respect of which extent of the property. Originally, the third respondent Company was in possession and enjoyment of a larger extent of the property, of which, a major portion has been taken over by the Chennai Metro Rail Limited for their purposes and the petitioners, being the lessees, thought that the owner has been issued the notice and therefore, they are in possession of about 7,700 Sq.ft., of land.

7. With reference to arrears of rent, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that originally, after the purchase, no notice was issued calling upon them to pay the rent and there was no attornment of tenancy. As a matter of fact, there were rival claimants. Therefore, the petitioner had filed interpleader suit in O.S.No.1512 of 2024 which is now pending on the file of the X Additional District and Sessions Court at Chennai and the prayer is to deposit the arrears of rent. Therefore, when already a Civil Suit is pending, with reference to the rent, that is unilaterally calculated by the petitioners themselves, the relief cannot be granted by this Court. Neither the calculation is correct nor the petitioners are entitled for such a sum. The respondent Corporation is also entitled to plead limitation.

8. With reference to the prayer relating to vacating and handing over of the property, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that earlier, with the very same prayer, two Writ Petitions were filed in W.P.No.7980 and 281 of 2004 and the same were dismissed by this Court directing the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for relief. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that when, twice, by different orders, dated 30.04.2013 and 30.04.2009, this Court had directed the petitioners, being the owners of the property, to approach the Civil Court, the judgment inter-parties will bind the petitioners. The subsequent change of law will not affect the judgment inter-parties. The petitioners, being the public sector Corporations and the place of business, being very important catering to the needs of the public and there is no other location of petrol pump on the right hand side from Guindy up to the Airport, this Court should permit the third respondent to continue the business until the issue is decided by the competent Civil Court.

9. In reply thereof, the learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that even in the earlier round of Writ Petitions, it can be seen that the respondent Company had made factually incorrect pleas. Only on that basis, this Court refused the relief. When, willfully, misrepresentation has been made in the earlier rounds, the same need not be put against the petitioners. As far as the plea relating to land acquisition is concerned, the learned Counsel for the petitioners would deny that there was any acquisition by the CMRL and they did not receive any notice. Neither the third respondent has submitted any document with reference to the same. As far as the plea that the land is essential is concerned, the same is incorrect and there are other retail outlets catering to the needs of the public. When the petitioners, being the owners of the land, are all together and they do not want to continue the lease, the law in this regard has been settled by this Court.

10. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

11. Firstly, with reference to the arrears of rent, the learned Counsel for the petitioners would rely upon the order of this Court in M.Ashrafunnisa and Anr. Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Ors. [W.P.No.29312 of 2014]. It is true that being a public sector company, the respondent Corporation can be directed to pay the arrears as it is not their contention that they claim title to the property. It is their claim that they initially came as tenants and they continue to do so. Even as per their argument, they filed the aforementioned suit with the following prayer:-

                          “a) Permitting the Plaintiff to deposit a sum of Rs.26,05,140/- for the period Feb. 2021 to Jan. 2024 in the account of the present suit towards past rentals of the suit property of a period of three years and future rentals at Rs.72,635 per month annually.”

12. Thus, it can be seen that at least, from February, 2021 to January, 2024, arrears of Rs.26,05,140/- is admitted by them and thereafter, they themselves want to deposit into Court at the rate of Rs.72,365/-. Since the rate claimed by the petitioners is disputed by the respondent Company, this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not entering into fixing of quantum. Interests of justice would be served that, as prayed for by the respondent Company, in their own plaint, they can be ordered to pay the petitioners till the date of vacating. Therefore, the arrears of Rs.26,05,140/- along with the rent at the rate of Rs.72,365/-, from February, 2024 till date of vacating, can be ordered to be paid.

13. With reference to the prayer made in W.P.No.46463 of 2025, even though the learned Senior Counsel would submit that there is an inter-parties judgment with reference to vacating the property, it must be seen that there can be no defence at all with reference to cancellation of license. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in C.Albert Morris Vs. K.Chandrasekaran and Ors. ((2006) 1 SCC 228), has laid down that once the lease is expired, the High Courts can direct and it is mandated on the part of the licensing authorities to consider the same and cancel the license. In view thereof, there is not even an iota of defence with reference to the first limb of the prayer.

14. It is true that mere change of legal position would not undo a judgment inter-parties and earlier, the Writ Petition, with reference to vacating and handing over the possession, was dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court. But, the petitioner is a public sector company. It is in need of the premises only to run the petrol pump. Once the license is liable to be cancelled, it cannot still contend that as per the earlier order, it will still squat on the property and require the petitioners to approach the Civil Court. In view thereof, I am of the view that in spite of the dismissal of the earlier order, in view of the other relief of cancellation of license being granted, in view of the altered situation, the petitioners will be entitled for the relief of possession also.

15. In the result, these Writ Petitions are allowed on the following terms:-

                          (i) The respondent in W.P.No.22359 of 2023 and the third respondent in W.P.No.46463 of 2025 namely, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, shall pay to the petitioners in the both the Writ Petitions jointly, the sum of Rs.26,05,140/- and the arrears calculated at the rate of Rs.72,365/- per month from February, 2024 till date of vacating.

                          (ii) The petitioners shall jointly intimate account, in which the amount can be deposited, by a written communication within one week from the date of receipt of a web-copy of this order.

                          (iii) Thereafter, within three weeks from the date of receipt of the intimation, the said sum shall be deposited and continue to be deposited till the date of vacating and handing over the property.

                          (iv) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall forthwith pass an order cancelling the license of the third respondent to run the retail outlet inasmuch as it is clear that the lease, with reference to the property in question, has expired decades ago and the petitioners, being the owners of the property, are not consenting for continuation of running of the petrol outlet.

                          (v) Three months time from the date of receipt of a web-copy of the order is granted to the Corporation to hand over vacant possession to the petitioners.

                          (vi) With reference to the other claims of enhanced rent or the other arrears for the previous period etc., in the very same suit that is pending by way of a counterclaim or by filing a fresh suit with reference to other grievances, the petitioners will be entitled to approach the appropriate fora.

There shall be no order as to costs.