Supreme Court: To enjoy benefit of TN City Tenants Act, tenants have to be in Premises

old and not suitable format

Alka Verma

Published On: November 15, 2021 15:00 IST

On 11 November, the Supreme Court of India emphasized on the point that to enjoy the benefits of Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1972, tenants have to be in the actual possessions of premises.

The Court talked about the Provision which deals with the Application filed by the tenant before the Court to direct the landlord to sell the land, while hearing a Civil Appeal.

A Bench comprising Justices L. Nageshwara Rao and B.R. Gavai made the observations while allowing the Appeal filed by National Company against Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (“BPCL”).

In the filed Appeal, the National Company mentioned that BPCL is not vacating the land leased to them, although the agreement has been expired.

In the said case, the National Company who is the Appellant, mentioned that although the lease agreement was expired on 31st December, 2009, BPCL never vacated the land.

Moreover, they constituted a petrol pump on the leased land and gave it to someone else.

Adding to this, when Appellant issued notice to BPCL, they neither vacated the premises, nor took measures to enter into a fresh agreement.

The Appellant also mentioned that when the Madras High Court transferred the case to Single Judge to the Division Bench, there was no relief granted to the Appellant.

Following this, they moved to Apex Court arguing that the tenants can only enjoy the benefit of Tenants Act when they are in actual physical possession of the concerned building.

However, BPCL was not in the actual possession of the premise as they sub-let it to someone else.

On the other hand, BPCL argued that it was the only one who controlled the premise and sub-letting it was an example of their control only.

After listening to the sides, the Court referred to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. R. Ravikiran 2011 (5) CTC 437, wherein the oil company was in the legal possession however the dealer was in the actual possession and that’s why there was no relief provided to the company.

Similarly, in this case, BPCL was in legal possession however, the someone else was in the actual possession of the premises and that’s why no such relief can be provided to BPCL.

At the end, the Court allowed the Civil Appeal and also ordered BPCL to pay a fine of 1 lakh.

Click here to Read/Download Order

Also Read: What is the Jurisdiction of Civil Courts?

Related Post