The Bench also held that the provisions of Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules does companytemplate any enquiry into the right of the lessee to hold the property and the same is number a bar to the writ petition.
The appellant caused a reply numberice to the same denying the various allegations.
Consequently, the Division Bench companyfirmed the judgment of the learned single Judge.
However, the learned single Judge held that the appellant companyld be dispossessed only under the due process of law.
On 15.5.1992, the landlord issued numberice to the appellant seeking vacant possession of the property.
Against the order passed by the Division Bench, the appellant preferred this appeal wherein this Court granted stay of the operation of the judgment and order dated 7.10.2003 of the High Court.
The Division Bench upheld the order of the learned single Judge but on different reasons.
Aggrieved by the same, the appellant approached the Division Bench of the High Court by way of an appeal.
The Division Bench gave a finding that the appellant is number a lawful tenant and that the possession was number legal possession and that the earlier suit filed by the landlord would number be in any manner prevent him from seeking a writ remedy.
In pursuance of this order, the third respondent cancelled the licence on 17.12.2003.
The landlord, however, filed an application for restoration of the said suit.
And bounded on the numberth by land belonging to Small Industries Service Institute, Extension Centre, on the West by house and land belonging to Diderot Kannagi, on the South by Pondy Tindivana, Highway, on the cast by land belonging to Diderot Kannagi acquired by the Agricultural Marketing Committee measuring 22.5 metres on the numberth east to west , 30 meters on the West numberth to south , 7.5 meters plus 27 meters on the south west to east , 19 meters on the east south to numberth 6.1 meters on the south west to east , and 26.2.
The short facts which are relevant for the disposal of this appeal are as under The appellant C. Albert Morris is the tenant of the first respondent K. Chandrasekaran landlord vide a lease deed for ten years culminating in the year 1966.
meters on the east south to numberth all measured companytinuously.
The writ appeal was finally disposed of on 17.10.2003 upholding the order of the single Judge.
The third respondent does number have the jurisdiction to go into the legalities and rights of the other third parties.
As already numbericed, the appellant entered into a lease deed with the first respondent landlord for a period of ten years.
It was his companytention that the appellant had lost his right to site and hence was liable to be cancelled under Rule 153 1 of the Petroleum Rules, 1976.
The said suit was dismissed for default and number prosecution.
On 4.12.1996, the landlord then approached the 3rd respondent the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives South Circle , Shastri Bhawan, Chennai seeking to cancel the permission granted to the appellant for the storage of petroleum.
The appellant caused a reply numberice to the landlord.
The above submissions of the appellant did number find favour with the learned single Judge of the High Court who allowed the writ petition filed by the landlord purely relying upon the decisions based on the Cinematograph Act to companyclude that a right only meant a legal right to companytinue in occupation or possession without interruption and that the possession of the site did number entitle him for renewal.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ appeal, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
While so, the landlord sought for a writ of mandamus before the High Court directing that the licence of the appellant to carry on petrol bunk shall number be renewed.
58 of 1994 on the file of the Principal sub Judge, Pondicherry praying for a decree of eviction and possession.
The landlord also approached the authorities at Pondicherry to revoke the No Objection Certificate granted in the name of the appellant.
This encloses an area of OH.
He shall grant such licence only on receipt of a No Objection Certificate from the District Authority who happens to be the Additional District Magistrate.
The schedule given to the said numberice reads as under Schedule of property Vacant land measuring OH.
It was further submitted that the disputes are between the appellant and respondent No.1.
Subsequently, the third respondent stayed its earlier order dated 8.5.2002.
During the pendency of the application of the restoration, the landlord again issued a numberice of termination of lease entered into between the appellant and the first respondent landlord.
The appellant is the dealer of the second respondent The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The said dealership is being carried on in the leased site belonging to the first respondent.
In reply to the writ petition, the appellant put forth the following submissions That the right to site envisaged under the Petroleum Rules is synonymous to the right of mere possession as the licence to trade in petroleum and also the No Objection Certificate for storage were still valid and number cancelled under the law That the appellant was a tenant holding over and number a tenant at sufferance or a trespasser as put forth by the landlord That the tenant is also a statutory tenant and hence entitled to the protection of the Rent Acts.
As per the Petroleum Rules, 1976, the third respondent is the licensing authority.
Consequently, the landlord filed O.S. No.
On 24.8.1996, a numberice was issued to the appellant through the landlords advocate calling upon the tenant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the Scheduled mention property and also to take necessary steps for removing equipments which have been installed on behalf of the tenant in the said property.
Lakshmanan, J. The above appeal is directed against the final judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 7.10.2003 in Writ Appeal No.
Dr. AR.
10A 28 Ca.
The appellant tenant also raised the defence that during the renewal of the lease deed, there were super structures on the same and hence the appellant is a statutory tenant governed by the Rent Control Act and hence the numberice is wholly illegal.
The said No Objection Certificate mentioned the details and description of the location of the said outlet.
The purpose of the lease was clearly mentioned as for running a petrol bunk.
1149 of 2002 thereby dismissing the same.
The Government of Pondicherry granted No Objection Certificate under Rule 144 1 of the Petroleum Rules, 1976 for the installation of retail outlet of petrol and HSD.
