WRIT PETITION 16735 of 2023 on 31 December 2002

ORDER:

Heard Mr L.Aravind Reddy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, and Mr DominicFernandas, learned standing counsel appearing onbehalf of the respondents.

2. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ ofMandamus directing the Respondent No. 1to vacate theSchedule Property belonging to the Petitioners herein i.e., theland admeasuring 1501 Sq. yards forming part of total extentof 37.5 guntas of land in Survey No.20, Nagarjuna Sagar,Hyderabad road, Lingojiguda, Saroornagar, Ranga ReddyDistrict, Telangana- 500059

3. The case of the Petitioner in brief as per theaverments made in the affidavit filed in support of thepresent writ petition, is as follows:

a) The Petitioner herein is in [possession ]of the landadmeasuring1501 Sq.yards forming [part ]of total extent of37.5 guntasof land in Survey No.20, Nagarjuna Sagar,

Hyderabad road, Lingojiguda, Saroornagar, Rarrga ReddyDistrict, Telangana- 500059 (Herein after referred to astheSubject f 'roperty) having taken on lease for 30 yearrs fromSri M. Kislran Rao vide registered Lease Der:d bearingDocument lto. 3 of 2003 dated 31.12.2002 on t1€'fil: of theSub-Registrrr, Saroornagar. That as per the registered WillDeed of Sri M. Kishan Rao, vide Document No. 160/111/2018on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Chikkadpally, the saidproperty stood transferred on to the name of ttre Petitionersherein after his death.

b) The .'t Respondent is a company deal n,3 rvith thebusiness of petroleum products and were kroking; to set up itsMS and HS ) retail outlets at Lingojiguda village, 5;aroornagarMandal and approached the Petitioner witt- an off,:r to obtainthe subject property. Accordingly, the Petitioner \os;. 1 to 3jointly exe( uted a lease dead in favour of M/s. IB,P CompanyLimited Ncw merged with and known as M/s. Irdian OilCorporatior Ltd. i.e., the 1st Responrlent h':re n) videregistered ease deed No.2756/2003 dated 18.0rt. Z0[r3 on thefile of the S ub-Registrar, Saroornagar.

c) As per the lease deed, the lease period was for 15 yearsto commence from 27.05.2003 with monthly lease rent ofRs.19,993/- with 10o/o increase after every 5 years and as perclause 12 of the lease deed if the 1't Respondent was desirousof renewing the lease deed, they were to give a notice notless than 3 months prior to the expiration of the lease deedand upon receiving such notice, the Petitioner may grant arenewed lease of the said premises on mutual terms.Admittedly, the said lease deed had expired on 17.06.2018and there was no communication from the Respondent for therenewal of the same.

d) After the expiration oF the lease deed dated18.06.2003, the Petitioner intimated the 1st respondent of thesame and held discussions for revision of the Lease amountsand extension for a further period of 15 years. Though theRespondent No. 1 agreed for monthly rental of Rs.3,30,000with escalation of 10o/o every 3 years and lease [period ]of 15years, the same was not reverted and no new lease deed wasexecuted. As such the Petitioners herein issued letter dated01.06.2021 requesting the Respondent to vacate the subjectproperty within one month from date of receipt of the said I

notice and to pay the differential new rent frorl th€ date ofprevio us Ie;rse expiry.

e) Despite, the Petitioners' repeated r(lc ue!;ts andcontinuous follow up, neither there was ,lny r,lsponse fromthe 1st respondent as to the extension of the le,tse nor thepremises was vacated and no rents have been rer:eived sincethe n

f) While the things stood thus, the 1't llespon(lent appliedfor renewa of the explosives license which is rnrrndatory forthe purcht se/ sale/ storage of Petrol and cther relatedproducts b'i making online application to the 2''d Rer;pondentand it is ttre duty cast upon the 2nd Responde'rt to check ifthere ls an existing lease agreement for the errtire leriod ofthe license to be granted. But the 2nd respondr:nt, withoutchecking tf e same had renewed the licensr: afte [- ]the expiry ofthe Leas3 vide No.P/SC/TG/14/2624(P211'30) dated05.L2.202( up to 31.12.2025.

S) [Therrrafter, ][the ][Petitioners even ][tried ][approa(:hing ][the]Responden: l{o. 2 for the cancellation of licence, but t went lnvain. Desp te requesting time and again [,.he ]re:spondent has b been operating the retail outlet without valid lease and is notvacating the subject property even after 5 years of expirationof the lease deed. Hence, this Writ Petition.vacating the subject property even after 5 years of expirationof the lease deed. Hence, this Writ Petition.

4. Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent No.1, inbrief, is as under:

a) The respondent corporation is a Government of IndiaEnterprise which is functioning under the administrativecontrol of Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum and NaturalGas. The respondent Corporation vide letter dated19.72.2017 requested the landlord for extension of the leasedeed in pursuance to clause 12 of the lease agreement afterthe expiry of the lease on 26.05.2018. On 29.05.2018 anoffer was received from the landowners for renewal of leasefor a period of 15 years.

b) Moreover, vide "Declaratory Affidavit" dated

19. L2.2O18, Smt. Puniala Geetha Lakshmi declared that shehas been continuing in the [peaceful ]and uninterruptedpossession of the said land which was leased to her and herchildren by Mr. M Krishna Rao for a period of 30 [years ]videregistered Lease Deed bearing Document No. 3 of 2003 dated 3L12.200:'., However, the Corporation is lnawar,: o'the WillDeed of !ri M. Kishan Rao executed vide t)ocurlent No.160l1,LI/2)1B.The petitioner is put to:Strict F'roc)f of thesame.

c) On 29.05.2018 an offer was received f'om thepetitioners for renewal of lease for a period of 15 yoars afterthe negot ations were held. On 74.07.2021, RespondentCorporatio t informed about the approval from t.h,3 cr)mpetentauthority 'or going ahead with the lease and accordinglyrequested petitioners to come forth for signing of the sub-lease agre ement. On L7.09.202L, Respondent Ccrporationagain requested the landowners to come forward to completethe registr.ltion process.

d) Consequent to the offer letter received by tlre retitionerafter the n3gotiations on 29.05.2018, Respondent Ccrporationdid apply for renewal of the license from t1€) clmpetentauthority to continue to do business. On t4 07.2O2t,Respondert Corporation informed about the ;tpproval fromthe comp€tent authority for going ahead with tl-re lease andaccordingl', requested petitioners to come forth frtr l;igning of .lr,.

the sub-lease agreement and vicie letter dated L9.lZ.2}Lfthe respondent Corporation requested the petitioner forextension of the lease deed in pursuance to clause 12 of thelease agreement, after the expiry of the lease. More so, theRespondent Corporation is still keen to execute the leaseagreement if the landowner comes forward.

e) Furthermore, the present writ petition is notmaintainable as the appropriate forum to seek the prayersought is civil court being matters arising out of contracts andalso with disputed questions of fact. Hence, the Writ Petitionis devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed in view ofthere being an alternative and more effective remedyavailable to the Petitioner herein.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

DISCUSSION

5. It is the specific case of the petitioners that thepetitioners are in possession of the land admeasuring 1501 sq.yards forming paft of total extent of 0.37 guntas of land inSurvey No.20, Nagarjuna Sagar, Hyderabad Road, Lingojiguda,Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana having takenthe said subject land on lease for 30 years from M.Kishan Rao vide regislered lease deed [ssring No 3 of .1003, dated31.12.2O0t on the file of the sub-registrar, Sa-oornagar andthat the sa id property stood transferred on tho larne of thepetitioners herein as per the registered will deerd of M.KishanRao vide document No.160/i1112018 on the file of the Sub-RegistraL Chikkadpally, and after his denti:;e, the 1'trespondent approached the petitioner with an of1'er to obtainschedule property on lease to set up its MS anrl t-lSD retailoutlets at Lingojiguda Village, Saroornagar lulandal, RangaReddy Dist rict and accordingly petitioners; [joint:ly ]executed alease deerl in favour of the 1't responden - herein videregistered ease deed No.275612003, dated 18.Cr6,2003 on thefile of the Sub-registra; Saroornagar. As [per ]the leese deed,the lease leriod was for L5 years, which conrrnences from27.05.2O2-i with monthly rent of Rs.19,993/- vrith LOo/oincrease alter every five years. That as per Clause 12 of thelease deec, if 1st respondent was desirous of renowing thelease deec, they were to give a notice not l€)s:; than threemonths [pr ]or to the expiration of the lease deed and uponreceiving such notice, the petitioners may gran: t.o renew thelease of th,: said premises on mutual terms, but the said lease

deed had expired on 1,7.06.2018 and there was nocommunication from respondent for the renewal of the same.6. It is further case of the petitioners that after expiratlonof lease deed dated 18.06.2023, the petitioners intimated the1't respondent and held discussions For revision oF leaseamount and extension for a further period of 15 years. Thesame was reverted and no new lease deed was executed. Assuch the petitioners issued letter dated 01.06.2021 requestingrespondent No.1 to vacate the schedule property within onemonth from the date of said notice and to further pay thedifferential new rent from the date of [previous ]lease explryand inspite of repeated requests there was no response fromrespondent No.1 as to the extension of the lease nor thepremises was vacated and the petitioners had received norents since then and further the 1st respondent applied forrenewal of the explosives license and the 2nd respondentrenewed the licence after expiry of the lease videNo.P/SC/TG/14/2624(P21I8O), dated 05.t2.202O upto3t.12.2025. The petitioners even tried approaching the 2ndrespondent for cancellation of licence, but in vain. In view ofthe fact that the petitioners repeated requests to vacate6. It is further case of the petitioners that after expiratlonof lease deed dated 18.06.2023, the petitioners intimated the1't respondent and held discussions For revision oF leaseamount and extension for a further period of 15 years. Thesame was reverted and no new lease deed was executed. Assuch the petitioners issued letter dated 01.06.2021 requestingrespondent No.1 to vacate the schedule property within onemonth from the date of said notice and to further pay thedifferential new rent from the date of [previous ]lease explryand inspite of repeated requests there was no response fromrespondent No.1 as to the extension of the lease nor thepremises was vacated and the petitioners had received norents since then and further the 1st respondent applied forrenewal of the explosives license and the 2nd respondentrenewed the licence after expiry of the lease videNo.P/SC/TG/14/2624(P21I8O), dated 05.t2.202O upto3t.12.2025. The petitioners even tried approaching the 2ndrespondent for cancellation of licence, but in vain. In view ofthe fact that the petitioners repeated requests to vacate schedule prcperty had no result and the 1tt restondent uponoperating the retail outlet all through squatting overpetitioners' subject property without valid leas<: ancl withoutpaying rent to the petitioners herein, the petitioners lad beenconstrained to approach the Court by filing the: [present ]writpetition.

7. The counter affidavit has been filed. A birre terusal ofthe counter affidavit indicates that the respondent corporationvide letter dated 19.12.2017 requestec the landlord forextension of the lease as per Clause 12 of' the leaseagreement, after expiry of the lease on 26.05.21018 well inadvance. However, no lease deed was executed by thepetitioners in favour of the 1st respondent corporaticn and on29.05.201[ an offer was received from the larrd orryners forrenewal of lease for a [period ]oF 15 years after the ne(lotiationswere held. Through letters dated L4.07.2021 and 17,09.2021,the respondent corporation requested land ovln,=rs, i.e. thepetitioners did not sign the said lease agreement e\/en as ondate, and that the respondent corporation is :;till keen toexecute thc lease agreement if the land owner corne!; forward.The respordent corporation also took up a sp€cific plea that I

:L

the revision was not maintainable since disputed facts areinvolved and the petitioners had an effective alternativeremedy to approach the appropriate forum for the reliefsought for in the present writ petition.

CONCLUSION

B. It is the specific case of the petitioners that there was nocommunication from the respondent for the renewal of thesame, and as per Clause 12 of the lease deed if the 1'trespondent was desirous of renewing the lease deed, alongwith a notice of not less than three months prior to theexpiration of the lease deed and upon receiving such notice,the petitioners may grant a renewed lease of the saidpremises on mutual terms.

9. It is further the specific case of the petitioners that afterthe expiration of the lease deed d.ated 18.06.2003 thepetitioners intimated the 1't respondent of the same and helddlscussions for revision of the lease amounts and extension fora further period of 15 years. Though the 1't respondentagreed for monthly rental of Rs.3,30,000/- with escalation of107o every three years, but the same was not reverted and nonew lease deed was executed, as such the petitioners herein had issued letter dated 0r.06.2021 requesting tht: rt:spondentto vacate lhe schedule prcperty within one mcnth from thedate of re:eipt of the said notice and to pay l:h,3 cifferentialnew rent f ['om ]the date oF expiry of the previous lease, whichhad even [lreen ]acknowledged by the respondent corporation,but inspit( oF petitioners' repeated requests, ther,: was noresponse from the ltt respondent as to the extension of thelease nor the premises was vacated nor rerts have beenreceived b7 the petitioner since then, anc the 1tt rr:spondentapplied fo| renewal of the explosives license tc rt:spondentNo.2 and the respondent No.2 without checking tl.re same hadrenewed lhe license after the expiry of the lease videNo.P/SC/T|;/14/2624(P2t7B0), dated 0s.72.2O2C up to3t.12.2021; and petitioners had approached the 2ndresponden: for the cancellation of the licence thrcugh theirletter date,l 18.05.2023, but counter affidavit is filed on behalfof respondent No.1 and the specific [pleas ]put f,)rth by the 1'tresponden'. are:

1) respondent corporation vide letter dated 19.12.2013itself well in advance to the expiry of leas;e deed on17.06.2011] had requested the landlord for extension of the ,rb lease deed as per Clause 12 of the lease agreement after theexpiry of lease on 26.05.2018.expiry of lease on 26.05.2018.

2) On 29.05.2018 after the negotiations were held, an offerwas received from the land owners for renewal of lease for aperiod of 15 years.

3) On t4.O7.2021 respondent corporation informed aboutthe approval from the competent Authority for going aheadwith the license and requested land owners to come forth forsigning of the sub-lease agreement.

4) On L7.O9.2021 respondent corporation through letter tothe land owners requested the land owners to come forward tocomplete the registration process.

5) The respondent corporation is still keen to execute thelease agreement, if the land owner comes forward.

6) Since the matter arises out of - [contract ][and ][involves]disputed questions of fact the writ petition needs to bedismissed in view of there being an alternative and moreefFective remedy available to the [petitioner.]

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner placedreliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in1999 Volume (4) SCC page 450 dated 13.O4.1999 in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. V [)olly Das, inparticular paras 7 and 9 reads as unde r:particular paras 7 and 9 reads as unde r:

"7. Irr the absence of constitutional or stltutcry rightsbeing involved a writ [proceeding ]would not lie t() enforcecontractual obligations even if it is soLtght to beenforced against the State or to avoi,l contractualliability arising thereto. In the absence of arry statutoryright Article 226 cannot be availed tr clairn any moneyin re:;pect of breach of contract or t()rt or o:herwise. Inthe present case, the appellants have, sought: tc exercisetheir powers under Section 7 of the Act ancl, therefore,thourlh the other coniequences ma'r be :cntractual innature, the exercise of the right being unCerr .r statute,it c€ nnot be said that the respondent c(luld notapproach the writ court.

9. W: may now advert to the cont(]ntion thal. the writremedy is not appropriate in this case. Whereinterl)retation of a contract aris,3s irr re ation toimmovable property and in workinr; such ccntract orrelief thereof or any other fall out th:reto rray have theeffec: of giving rise to an action in tf,rt or f,:r Jamages,the Eppropriate remedy would be a civil s;uit. But if thefacts pleaded before the court are o" sucf rratr.rre whichdo not involve any complicated questlons of fact needingelabc rate investigation of the same, the High Courtcoulc also exercise writ jurisdiction under Artic le 226 of the Constitution in such matters. There can be no hardand fast rule in such matters. When the High Court haschosen to exercise its powers under Article 226 of theConstitution we cannot say that the discretion exercisedin entertaining the petition is wrong."

It is contended that writ remedy is appropriate in this caseand the writ petition needs to be allowed as prayed for.

11. This Court opines that there are disputedquestions of fact involved in the present case, if thespecific plea of the petitioner is that as per Clause 12 ofthe lease agreement entered into by the petitioner andthe 1st respondent corporation, the lst respondent hadto give a notice not less than three months prior to theexpiration of the lease deed expressing its desire ofrenewing the Iease deed which according to thepetitioners had not been done in the present case bythe 1st respondent and inspite of petitioners repeatedrequests there was no resoonse from the 1st resoondentas to the extension of the lease nor the oremises wasvacated nor rents have been received bv the oetitioner.On the contrary, the specific plea of the respondent isthat the respondent corporataon vide letter dated

L9.12.2OL7 itself well in advance to ttre expiry of leasedeed on 17.06.2018 had requested the landlord forextension of the lease deed as per Clause 1ll of thelease agre ement after the expiry of lease orr i2,6.05.2O18and that r/ide tetters dated 14.07.202 1- ancl .L7.O9.2O2Lthe respordent corporation requested the land ownersto come I orward to complete the reglistrati,cn [process]and petitioners had failed to sign th,e dor:umt:nts andcomplete the registration of the lease.deed on 17.06.2018 had requested the landlord forextension of the lease deed as per Clause 1ll of thelease agre ement after the expiry of lease orr i2,6.05.2O18and that r/ide tetters dated 14.07.202 1- ancl .L7.O9.2O2Lthe respordent corporation requested the land ownersto come I orward to complete the reglistrati,cn [process]and petitioners had failed to sign th,e dor:umt:nts andcomplete the registration of the lease.

t2. This Court in view of the discus!;ion;rrrived at asabove, o[,ines that writ remedy is not approlrriate inthis case since disputed questions of facts are involvedin the pre ient case as enlisted below:

a) Whether the petitioners received the letter dated19.t.1.20L7 of the respondent cor:oratiorr requestingthe andlord for extension of the lease <leed as [per]cla us e 12 of the lease ag reement enter<rd in to by thepetit oners and the 1tt respondent corporatic n well inadvance, even before expiry of the k:a:;e deed on17.0 ).2018 and had requested the l; ndlords forextension as specifically pleaded by respond No.1?=nt

b) /Vhether the original lease had to be rerrewed? Ifyes, in what manner?

-_L

c) Whether by a deed or otherwise and the eFfectthereof?

d) Whether the payment of rents due, payment ofdamages or mesne profits would arise by the respondentcorporation?

13. This Court opines that the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 1999 Volume (4) SCC page 45O dated13.04.1999 in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. VDolly Das relied upon by the petitioners would not applyto the facts of the present case.

14. The Division Bench of the Apex Court in itsjudgment dated 2O.07.2021 reported in 2O2L SCConline SC 562 in Shubhas Jain v Rajeshwari Shivam atpara 26 observed as under:

"It is well settled that the High Court exercising itsextra-ordinary writ [jurisdiction ]under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, does not adjudicate hotly disputedquestions of facts."

15. Taking into consideration all the above referred facts and circumstances of the case and the DivisionBench judgment dated 2O.O7.2021 reported in 2021 SCC

\

online SC 562 in Shubhas Jain v Rajes;hwar.i Shivam ofthe Apex court, the writ petition is disnris;sed sincedisputed c uestions of facts are invotyed as e>:pla ined above.

Misceilaneous

petitions, if any, pe"rding :;hall stand closed Sd/- T. }(RISHNA KUMARDt:PUTY REGISTRARi/TRUE COPY'\usi=c'floN drrtcen One Fair Cocy to the Hon'ble MRS JUSTICE SIJREP,\L Ll l\tANDA(For Her Ladyships' Kind Peru:;al)

To

1 . 1 ['1 ]LR Copies

2. The Under Se cretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and CompanyAffairs, New t )elhi.3. The Secretarr, Telangana Advocates Association Libranr. llig-r CourtBuildings, Hy Jerabad.4. One CC to Sltl L.ARAVIND REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

Facts

[OPUC]5. One CC to Srll DOMINIC FERNANDES, SC FOR IOCL [OPLC]6. One CC to S 1l GADI PRAVEEN, Dy. SOLICITOR GENI:F$L OF INDIAtoPUCl

7. Two CD Copies

PSK

HIGH COUFII'

SN,JDATED:031'lCtl2023

ORDERWP.No.167'.i5'of 2023

DISMISSIN(i THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT CCISTS.

<)

9'..LrT E 61^/;Qt.?,,ci'(-)II[$B]\$1\)),J\' [t. ][I^.F ][-.'].,.-i'