REV.APLW/240/2026 of BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. Vs A.KAVITHARANI on 18 September 2026

ORDER

The respondents in W.P. No.9253 of 2024 have come forward with the above Review Application for the following reliefs:- “to allow the Review Application, recall the order dated 21.01.2026 passed in WP.No. 9253 of 2024, restore the writ petition for fresh hearing.”

2. Before proceeding to consider the Review Application, it would be apposite to briefly refer to the facts narrated in the Writ Petition. For the sake of convenience and ease of understanding, the parties are referred to in the same ranking as in W.P. No.9253 of 2024.

3. The petitioner had filed W.P. No.9253 of 2024 seeking the following reliefs:- “directing the respondents 1 to 3 herein to vacate and handover vacant possession of the leased premises let out to them through a Lease Deed dated 08.06.2000 under Document No.551 of 2000 situated at Survey No.7/6 (new) KuttalamMelaSalai, Mayiladuthurai to an extent of 13375 sq.ft. (1242.44 Sq.Meter) to the petitioner herein within the time limit as stipulated by this Court.”

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the property comprised in S.No.7/6B(New) belongs to her father, Paneerselvam. During his lifetime, the said Paneerselvam had entered into a registered Lease Deed with the respondents for a period of 20 years commencing from 01.11.1999. The lease came to an end on 31.10.2019. In the meantime, the father of the petitioner, namely, Paneerselvam, died, leaving behind his wife, Rajalakshmi, daughters, Kavitharani (petitioner) and Jothi, and his son, Venkateswaran, as his legal heirs. Though the lease had come to an end, the respondents had neither vacated nor handed over possession of the subject premises to the petitioner. Despite the petitioner having clearly expressed her decision not to renew the lease, the respondents continued to remain in possession of the subject premises. Therefore, the petitioner sent a representation dated 10.02.2024 calling upon the respondents to vacate and hand over possession of the subject premises. However, the respondents refused to vacate the premises and continued to remain in possession. They had also not replied to the petitioner's representation dated 10.02.2024. Hence, the petitioner had come forward with WP.No.9253 of 2024.

5. This Court, by order dated 21.01.2026, taking note of the terms of the lease agreement and the fact that the respondent is a statutory corporation, directed them to comply with the terms of the lease by vacating and handing over possession of the subject premises.

6. It appears that the order passed by this Court was taken up on appeal by the respondents in W.A. No.717 of 2026 before the First Bench of this Court. When the matter came up for admission, it appears that the learned counsel for the appellant/respondents sought permission to withdraw the Writ Appeal with liberty to avail the “remedy in accordance with law”. Consequently, the Writ Appeal was dismissed, granting the aforesaid liberty.

7. Interpreting the said liberty as conferring a right upon them to file a Review Application, the respondents have come forward with the present Review Application.

8. In the Review Application, the respondents have taken a defence that the petitioner is only a co-owner and one of the legal heirs of the original owner and therefore, she could not seek eviction of the subject premises for herself and on behalf of the other co-owners. Another ground raised by the respondents is that the other co-owners are willing to renew the lease.

9. All the grounds that have been raised in the Review Application revolve only around the issue that a co-owner cannot seek to evict a tenant on behalf of the other co-owners.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/Review Petitioners would reiterate the very same stand and would rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1996) 6 SCC 373 – Sk. Sattar Sk. Mohd. Choudhari v. Gundappa Ambadas Bukate.

11. He would submit that, in the light of the above judgment, a co-sharer cannot initiate action for eviction of a tenant from a portion of the tenanted accommodation, nor can he sue for his part of the rent.

12. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents/Review Petitioners.

13. The lease is with reference to an extent of 13375 sq.ft., comprised in S.No.7/6B (New), which is more fully described in the Lease Deed. The lease was entered into between the petitioner's father and the respondents and the same had come to an end as early as on 31.10.2019. However, the respondents have not vacated the premises in question. The petitioner was the person who had submitted a representation to the respondents on behalf of her mother and siblings. At that point of time, there was no question raised by the respondents regarding the authority of the petitioner to seek possession. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioner had specifically stated that the Writ Petition was being filed on behalf of the co-owners as well. This fact was also not disputed by the respondents when the matter came up before this Court, though the respondents were represented by counsel.

14. The present Review Application has been filed only on the ground that a co-owner of a property cannot seek eviction when the other co-owners want to continue the tenancy. However, not a shred of evidence has been placed before this Court to show that the other co-owners had consented to the renewal of the lease.

15. The judgment relied upon by the respondents/Review Petitioners would not come to their aid, as the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was one where eviction was sought by a co-owner in respect of an undivided share with reference to a portion of the property and for his share of the rent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 37 of the said judgment, has held as follows: “ As pointed out earlier, a co-sharer cannot initiate action for eviction of the tenant from the portion of the tenanted accommodation nor can he sue for his part of the rent. The tenancy cannot be split up either in estate or in rent or any other obligation by unilateral act of one of the co-owners. If, however, all the co-owners or the co-lessors agree among themselves and split by partition the demised property by metes and bounds and come to have definite, positive and identifiable shares in that property, they become separate individual owners of each severed portion and can deal with that portion as also the tenant thereof as individual owner/lessor.”

16. In the case on hand, the petitioner seeks eviction with reference to the entire tenanted portion of the property and has not restricted her claim to any particular portion of the property. As already stated the proceedings was initiated by her for and on behalf of the other co-owners and her authority has not been disputed by the others. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents/Review Petitioners would not come to the rescue of the respondents/Review Petitioners.

17. In view of the above discussion, this Review Application stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 18-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SHR

P.T.ASHA J. SHR REV.APLW No. 240 of 2026 AND WMP NO. 41045 OF 2026 18-09-2026