JUDEGMENT SUMMARY:
Subhash Chander vs M/S Bharat Petroleum Corporation
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
28th January 2022
JUDGES:
A. Rastogi, J
A.S. Oka, J.
PARTIES:
Subhash Chander & Ors. (Appellant)
M/S Bharat Petroleum Corporation. Ltd. (BPCL) & Anr. (Respondent)
SUBJECT
The Supreme Court held that Civil Court Jurisdiction is excluded from Landlord-Tenant Disputes. They are specifically covered by the State Rent Acts and in this particular case Haryana (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973. Further, the eviction of the tenants after the expiry of the lease will be governed by the same.
AN OVERVIEW
1. The property owned by late Vinod Kumar was given on lease M/s Burmah Shell Oil Storage Distributing Company Ltd. for a fixed period of 20 years in 1958.Clause 10 of the lease provided for the renewal of the lease once for another 20 years.
2. Before the expiry of the lease, the Central Government had enacted Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings) Act, 1976 which led to defendants taking over the leasehold rights. The respondents had availed ofthe option of renewal of the lease for another period of 20 years. The lease was renewed in 1978 which also expired in 1998.
3. The appellants had served a legal notice on the respondents for termination of tenancy of the respondents under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. A civil suit for possession of the subject land was then filed.
4. The respondent had raised two objections:
a. Civil Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit of possession.
b. The respondents had become the statutory tenant of the suit property and the appellants had been receiving rent from the respondents without any demur.
5. Thetrial Court had held that the respondents were unauthorized possessors of the suit property after the expiry of the lease and directed them tovacate it holding that the appellants werethe rightful possessor of the suit land in question. The Court of Appeal, however, had set aside the said judgment in 2002 holding that Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.
6. The judgement of the Court of Appeal was challenged before the High Court which was dismissed in 2009. The appellants assailed the judgement of the High Court in the Supreme Court.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Haryana (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973:
- Section 2(h)- Define tenant.
Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings) Act, 1976:
- Section 7- Empowers the Central Government to directly vest the undertaking of the Burmah Shell in any Government company.
- Section 11- Provides that the Act has a sweeping effect.
Transfer of Property Act 1882:
- Section 108- In the absence of a written contract or local usage, it specifies the duration of certain leases.
ISSUES
The issuesthat were raised are:
- Whether the Civil Court did or did not have jurisdiction over possession suit?
- Whether the petition for possession filed by the appellants would lie before Haryana (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973?
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
- Before the expiry of the initial lease, Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings) Act was legislated. The pre-existing tenancy rights of Burmah Shell were vested with the Central Government which was transferred to the respondents as per Section 7 of the Act. Therefore, the respondents became the statutory tenant of the land.
- The Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in V. Dhanapal Chettiar vs Yesodai Amma, 1979 had held that though the lease period was determined by forfeiture under the Transfer of Property Act, the forfeiture came into play only if liability to be evicted under the State Rent Act had been incurred. It was stated that even after the expiry of the contractual period of tenancy, the tenant could be evicted only in accordance with the State Rent Act.
- The relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties of the suit of possession according to Section 2(h) of the Haryana (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act. The disputes between landlord and tenant should be adjudicated in accordance with the provisions the Act. The jurisdiction of a civil Court was indeed impliedly barred from the field covered specifically by the provisions of the Act.
- The judgements referred to by the appellants’ counsel were of no relevance in this particular case.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal holding that the judgement of the High Court was free from error. It held that even after the expiry of the lease term of the lease deed, the respondents became statutory tenants and could only be evictedin accordance with the Haryana (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973. The Supreme Court barred the jurisdiction of the Civil Court From trying landlord-tenant disputes which are covered specifically by State Rent Acts.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
