The High Court · 2023

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

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

3. The case of the Petitioner in brief as per the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition, is as follows: a) The Petitioner herein is in possession of the land admeasuring 1501 Sq.yards forming part of total extent of

37.5 guntas of land in Survey No.20, Nagarjuna Sagar, 4 Hyderabad road, Lingojiguda, Saroornagar, Rarrga Reddy District, Telangana- 500059 (Herein after referred to as theSubject f 'roperty) having taken on lease for 30 yearrs from Sri M. Kislran Rao vide registered Lease Der:d bearing Document lto. 3 of 2003 dated 31.12.2002 on t1€'fil: of the Sub-Registrrr, Saroornagar. That as per the registered Will Deed of Sri M. Kishan Rao, vide Document No. 160/111/2018 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Chikkadpally, the said property stood transferred on to the name of ttre Petitioners herein after his death. b) The .'t Respondent is a company deal n,3 rvith the business of petroleum products and were kroking; to set up its MS and HS ) retail outlets at Lingojiguda village, 5;aroornagar Mandal and approached the Petitioner witt- an off,:r to obtain the subject property. Accordingly, the Petitioner \os;. 1 to 3 jointly exe( uted a lease dead in favour of M/s. IB,P Company Limited Ncw merged with and known as M/s. Irdian Oil Corporatior Ltd. i.e., the 1st Responrlent h':re n) vide registered ease deed No.2756/2003 dated 18.0rt. Z0[r3 on the file of the S ub-Registrar, Saroornagar. I ) 5 c) As per the lease deed, the lease period was for 15 years to commence from 27.05.2003 with monthly lease rent of Rs.19,993/- with 10o/o increase after every 5 years and as per clause 12 of the lease deed if the 1't Respondent was desirous of renewing the lease deed, they were to give a notice not less than 3 months prior to the expiration of the lease deed and upon receiving such notice, the Petitioner may grant a renewed lease of the said premises on mutual terms. Admittedly, the said lease deed had expired on 17.06.2018 and there was no communication from the Respondent for the renewal of the same. d) After the expiration oF the lease deed dated

18.06.2003, the Petitioner intimated the 1st respondent of the same and held discussions for revision of the Lease amounts and extension for a further period of 15 years. Though the Respondent No. 1 agreed for monthly rental of Rs.3,30,000 with escalation of 10o/o every 3 years and lease period of 15 years, the same was not reverted and no new lease deed was executed. As such the Petitioners herein issued letter dated

01.06.2021 requesting the Respondent to vacate the subject property within one month from date of receipt of the said 6 notice and to pay the differential new rent frorl th€ date of previo us Ie;rse expiry. e) Despite, the Petitioners' repeated r(lc ue!;ts and continuous follow up, neither there was ,lny r,lsponse from the 1st respondent as to the extension of the le,tse nor the premises was vacated and no rents have been rer:eived since the n f) While the things stood thus, the 1't llespon(lent applied for renewa of the explosives license which is rnrrndatory for the purcht se/ sale/ storage of Petrol and cther related products b'i making online application to the 2''d Rer;pondent and it is ttre duty cast upon the 2nd Responde'rt to check if there ls an existing lease agreement for the errtire leriod of the license to be granted. But the 2nd respondr:nt, without checking tf e same had renewed the licensr: afte - the expiry of the Leas3 vide No.P/SC/TG/14/2624(P211'30) dated

05.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 ln vain. Desp te requesting time and again ,.he re:spondent has I b 1 been operating the retail outlet without valid lease and is not vacating the subject property even after 5 years of expiration of the lease deed. Hence, this Writ Petition.

4. Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent No.1, in brief, is as under: a) The respondent corporation is a Government of India Enterprise which is functioning under the administrative control of Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. The respondent Corporation vide letter dated

19.72.2017 requested the landlord for extension of the lease deed in pursuance to clause 12 of the lease agreement after the expiry of the lease on 26.05.2018. On 29.05.2018 an offer was received from the landowners for renewal of lease for a period of 15 years. b) Moreover, vide "Declaratory Affidavit" dated

19.L2.2O18, Smt. Puniala Geetha Lakshmi declared that she has been continuing in the peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the said land which was leased to her and her children by Mr. M Krishna Rao for a period of 30 years vide registered Lease Deed bearing Document No. 3 of 2003 dated 3L12.200:'., However, the Corporation is lnawar,: o'the Will Deed of !ri M. Kishan Rao executed vide t)ocurlent No. 160l1,LI/2)1B.The petitioner is put to:Strict F'roc)f of the same. c) On 29.05.2018 an offer was received f'om the petitioners for renewal of lease for a period of 15 yoars after the negot ations were held. On 74.07.2021, Respondent Corporatio t informed about the approval from t.h,3 cr)mpetent authority 'or going ahead with the lease and accordingly requested petitioners to come forth for signing of the sub- lease agre ement. On L7.09.202L, Respondent Ccrporation again requested the landowners to come forward to complete the registr.ltion process. d) Consequent to the offer letter received by tlre retitioner after the n3gotiations on 29.05.2018, Respondent Ccrporation did apply for renewal of the license from t1€) clmpetent authority to continue to do business. On t4 07.2O2t, Respondert Corporation informed about the ;tpproval from the comp€tent authority for going ahead with tl-re lease and accordingl', requested petitioners to come forth frtr l;igning of .lr,. o the sub-lease agreement and vicie letter dated L9.lZ.2}Lf the respondent Corporation requested the petitioner for extension of the lease deed in pursuance to clause 12 of the lease agreement, after the expiry of the lease. More so, the Respondent Corporation is still keen to execute the lease agreement if the landowner comes forward. e) Furthermore, the present writ petition is not maintainable as the appropriate forum to seek the prayer sought is civil court being matters arising out of contracts and also with disputed questions of fact. Hence, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed in view of there being an alternative and more effective remedy available to the Petitioner herein. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION DISCUSSION

5. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the petitioners are in possession of the land admeasuring 1501 sq. yards forming paft of total extent of 0.37 guntas of land in Survey No.20, Nagarjuna Sagar, Hyderabad Road, Lingojiguda, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana having taken the said subject land on lease for 30 years from M.Kishan Rao \ I I I \ 10 vide regislered lease deed [ssring No 3 of .1003, dated

31.12.2O0t on the file of the sub-registrar, Sa-oornagar and that the sa id property stood transferred on tho larne of the petitioners herein as per the registered will deerd of M.Kishan Rao vide document No.160/i1112018 on the file of the Sub- RegistraL Chikkadpally, and after his denti:;e, the 1't respondent approached the petitioner with an of1'er to obtain schedule property on lease to set up its MS anrl t-lSD retail outlets at Lingojiguda Village, Saroornagar lulandal, Ranga Reddy Dist rict and accordingly petitioners; joint:ly executed a lease deerl in favour of the 1't responden - herein vide registered ease deed No.275612003, dated 18.Cr6,2003 on the file of the Sub-registra; Saroornagar. As per the leese deed, the lease leriod was for L5 years, which conrrnences from

27.05.2O2-i with monthly rent of Rs.19,993/- vrith LOo/o increase alter every five years. That as per Clause 12 of the lease deec, if 1st respondent was desirous of renowing the lease deec, they were to give a notice not l€)s:; than three months pr or to the expiration of the lease deed and upon receiving such notice, the petitioners may gran: t.o renew the lease of th,: said premises on mutual terms, but the said lease ( i i i I I 11 deed had expired on 1,7.06.2018 and there was no communication from respondent for the renewal of the same.

6. It is further case of the petitioners that after expiratlon of lease deed dated 18.06.2023, the petitioners intimated the 1't respondent and held discussions For revision oF lease amount and extension for a further period of 15 years. The same was reverted and no new lease deed was executed. As such the petitioners issued letter dated 01.06.2021 requesting respondent No.1 to vacate the schedule property within one month from the date of said notice and to further pay the differential new rent from the date of previous lease explry and inspite of repeated requests there was no response from respondent No.1 as to the extension of the lease nor the premises was vacated and the petitioners had received no rents since then and further the 1st respondent applied for renewal of the explosives license and the 2nd respondent renewed the licence after expiry of the lease vide No.P/SC/TG/14/2624(P21I8O), dated 05.t2.202O upto 3t.12.2025. The petitioners even tried approaching the 2nd respondent for cancellation of licence, but in vain. In view of the fact that the petitioners repeated requests to vacate \ 72 schedule prcperty had no result and the 1tt restondent upon operating the retail outlet all through squatting over petitioners' subject property without valid leas<: ancl without paying rent to the petitioners herein, the petitioners lad been constrained to approach the Court by filing the: present writ petition.

7. The counter affidavit has been filed. A birre terusal of the counter affidavit indicates that the respondent corporation vide letter dated 19.12.2017 requestec the landlord for extension of the lease as per Clause 12 of' the lease agreement, after expiry of the lease on 26.05.21018 well in advance. However, no lease deed was executed by the petitioners in favour of the 1st respondent corporaticn and on

29.05.201[ an offer was received from the larrd orryners for renewal of lease for a period oF 15 years after the ne(lotiations were held. Through letters dated L4.07.2021 and 17,09.2021, the respondent corporation requested land ovln,=rs, i.e. the petitioners did not sign the said lease agreement e\/en as on date, and that the respondent corporation is :;till keen to execute thc lease agreement if the land owner corne!; forward. The respordent corporation also took up a sp€cific plea that -,'' /l :L 13 the revision was not maintainable since disputed facts are involved and the petitioners had an effective alternative remedy to approach the appropriate forum for the relief sought for in the present writ petition. CONCLUSION B. It is the specific case of the petitioners that there was no communication from the respondent for the renewal of the same, and as per Clause 12 of the lease deed if the 1't respondent was desirous of renewing the lease deed, along with a notice of not less than three months prior to the expiration of the lease deed and upon receiving such notice, the petitioners may grant a renewed lease of the said premises on mutual terms.

9. It is further the specific case of the petitioners that after I the expiration of the lease deed d.ated 18.06.2003 the petitioners intimated the 1't respondent of the same and held dlscussions for revision of the lease amounts and extension for a further period of 15 years. Though the 1't respondent agreed for monthly rental of Rs.3,30,000/- with escalation of 107o every three years, but the same was not reverted and no new lease deed was executed, as such the petitioners herein 14 had issued letter dated 0r.06.2021 requesting tht: rt:spondent to vacate lhe schedule prcperty within one mcnth from the date of re:eipt of the said notice and to pay l:h,3 cifferential new rent f 'om the date oF expiry of the previous lease, which had even lreen acknowledged by the respondent corporation, but inspit( oF petitioners' repeated requests, ther,: was no response from the ltt respondent as to the extension of the lease nor the premises was vacated nor rerts have been received b7 the petitioner since then, anc the 1tt rr:spondent applied fo| renewal of the explosives license tc rt:spondent No.2 and the respondent No.2 without checking tl.re same had renewed lhe license after the expiry of the lease vide No.P/SC/T|;/14/2624(P2t7B0), dated 0s.72.2O2C up to 3t.12.2021; and petitioners had approached the 2nd responden: for the cancellation of the licence thrcugh their letter date,l 18.05.2023, but counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent No.1 and the specific pleas put f,)rth by the 1't responden'. are: 1) respondent corporation vide letter dated 19.12.2013 itself well in advance to the expiry of leas;e deed on

17.06.2011] had requested the landlord for extension of the T ,rb 15 lease deed as per Clause 12 of the lease agreement after the expiry of lease on 26.05.2018. 2) On 29.05.2018 after the negotiations were held, an offer was received from the land owners for renewal of lease for a period of 15 years. 3) On t4.O7.2021 respondent corporation informed about the approval from the competent Authority for going ahead with the license and requested land owners to come forth for signing of the sub-lease agreement. 4) On L7.O9.2021 respondent corporation through letter to the land owners requested the land owners to come forward to complete the registration process. 5) The respondent corporation is still keen to execute the lease agreement, if the land owner comes forward. 6) Since the matter arises out of disputed questions of fact the writ petition needs to be contract and involves - dismissed in view of there being an alternative and more efFective remedy available to the petitioner. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 1999 Volume (4) SCC page 450 dated 13.O4.1999 in I I I I l 16 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. V [)olly Das, in particular paras 7 and 9 reads as unde r: "7. Irr the absence of constitutional or stltutcry rights being involved a writ proceeding would not lie t() enforce contractual obligations even if it is soLtght to be enforced against the State or to avoi,l contractual liability arising thereto. In the absence of arry statutory right Article 226 cannot be availed tr clairn any money in re:;pect of breach of contract or t()rt or o:herwise. In the present case, the appellants have, sought: tc exercise their powers under Section 7 of the Act ancl, therefore, thourlh the other coniequences ma'r be :cntractual in nature, the exercise of the right being unCerr .r statute, it c€ nnot be said that the respondent c(luld not approach the writ court.

9. W: may now advert to the cont(]ntion thal. the writ remedy is not appropriate in this case. Where interl)retation of a contract aris,3s irr re ation to immovable property and in workinr; such ccntract or relief thereof or any other fall out th:reto rray have the effec: of giving rise to an action in tf,rt or f,:r Jamages, the Eppropriate remedy would be a civil s;uit. But if the facts pleaded before the court are o" sucf rratr.rre which do not involve any complicated questlons of fact needing elabc rate investigation of the same, the High Court coulc also exercise writ jurisdiction under Artic le 226 of 1-7 the Constitution in such matters. There can be no hard and fast rule in such matters. When the High Court has chosen to exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution we cannot say that the discretion exercised in entertaining the petition is wrong." It is contended that writ remedy is appropriate in this case and the writ petition needs to be allowed as prayed for.

11. This Court opines that there are disputed questions of fact involved in the present case, if the specific plea of the petitioner is that as per Clause 12 of the lease agreement entered into by the petitioner and the 1st respondent corporation, the lst respondent had to give a notice not less than three months prior to the expiration of the lease deed expressing its desire of renewing the Iease deed which according to the petitioners had not been done in the present case by the 1st respondent and inspite of petitioners repeated requests there was no resoonse from the 1st resoondent as to the extension of the lease nor the oremises was vacated nor rents have been received bv the oetitioner. On the contrary, the specific plea of the respondent is that the respondent corporataon vide letter dated 18 L9.12.2OL7 itself well in advance to ttre expiry of lease deed on 17.06.2018 had requested the landlord for extension of the lease deed as per Clause 1ll of the lease agre ement after the expiry of lease orr i2,6.05.2O18 and that r/ide tetters dated 14.07.202 1- ancl .L7.O9.2O2L the respordent corporation requested the land owners to come I orward to complete the reglistrati,cn process and petitioners had failed to sign th,e dor:umt:nts and complete the registration of the lease. t2. This Court in view of the discus!;ion;rrrived at as above, o[,ines that writ remedy is not approlrriate in this case since disputed questions of facts are involved in the pre ient case as enlisted below: a) Whether the petitioners received the letter dated 19.t.1.20L7 of the respondent cor:oratiorr requesting the andlord for extension of the lease <leed as per cla us e 12 of the lease ag reement enter<rd in to by the petit oners and the 1tt respondent corporatic n well in advance, even before expiry of the k:a:;e deed on 17.0 ).2018 and had requested the l; ndlords for extension as specifically pleaded by respond =nt No.1? b) /Vhether the original lease had to be rerrewed? If yes, in what manner? -_L 19 c) Whether by a deed or otherwise and the eFfect thereof? d) Whether the payment of rents due, payment of damages or mesne profits would arise by the respondent corporation?

13. This Court opines that the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 1999 Volume (4) SCC page 45O dated

13.04.1999 in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. V Dolly Das relied upon by the petitioners would not apply to the facts of the present case.

14. The Division Bench of the Apex Court in its judgment dated 2O.07.2021 reported in 2O2L SCC online SC 562 in Shubhas Jain v Rajeshwari Shivam at para 26 observed as under: "It is well settled that the High Court exercising its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not adjudicate hotly disputed questions of facts."

15. Taking into consideration all the above referred facts and circumstances of the case and the Division Bench judgment dated 2O.O7.2021 reported in 2021 SCC 20 online SC 562 in Shubhas Jain v Rajes;hwar.i Shivam of the Apex court, the writ petition is disnris;sed since disputed c uestions of facts are invotyed as e>:pla ined above. Misceilaneous petitions, if any, pe"rding :;hall stand closed \ To i/TRUE COPY' Sd/- T. }(RISHNA KUMAR Dt:PUTY REGISTRAR si=c'floN drrtcen \u One Fair Cocy to the Hon'ble MRS JUSTICE SIJREP,\L Ll l\tANDA (For Her Ladyships' Kind Peru:;al) 1 . 1 '1 LR Copies 2. The Under Se cretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New t )elhi.

3. The Secretarr, Telangana Advocates Association Libranr. llig-r Court Buildings, Hy Jerabad.

4. One CC to Sltl L.ARAVIND REDDY, Advocate [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 INDIA toPUCl

7. Two CD Copies PSK I I .LrT E 61^ 9'. t .?,, /;Q i' c \$ $B (-) 1\ ) ' t. I^.F -.' -i' .,. HIGH COUFII' SN,J I I DATED:031'lCtl2023 ORDER WP.No.167'.i5'of 2023 II ) ,J \ DISMISSIN(i THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CCISTS. <)