Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently observed that a party cannot claim independent rights without being part of a contract, dismissing the argument of a Kolkata petrol pump operator concerning an agreement between Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (BPCL) and the property owner to vacate the premises.

A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal rejected the dealer’s claim that he had the right to retain possession of the premises and could not be evicted under the terms agreed between BPCL and the lessor.

"We do not find any merit in the argument as there is no privity of contract between the respondent No 5 (dealer) and the petitioner herein, and the privity of contract is between the petitioner and BPCL. Once lessee forgoes his tenancy in agreed terms on the premises in question and ready to vacate, the respondent No 5 who has licence to operate the petrol pump on the said premises cannot acquire any independent right without havin any privity of contract with petitioner," the bench said.

The matter related to the eviction of the respondents from the property in their possession at Beliaghata Road and Nafar Koley Road, Kolkata.

Delight Grih Nirman Pvt Ltd filed a writ petition in the high court seeking direction to the respondents to vacate and hand over the peaceful possession of the property. The petition was allowed by the single judge bench by an order of April 26, 2023.

However, on intra-court appeal, the division bench set aside the order by a judgment on September 27, 2023 holding that the case involved disputed questions of facts which could not be resolved in writ jurisdiction and the parties were relegated to the civil court. 

During the hearing before the apex court, the dealer, M/s Hind Service Station, a licensee operating the petrol pump on the site was permitted to be joined as a party.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohtagi, appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, made an offer that the petitioner was ready to forego all the arrears of rent and mesne profit, in case vacant physical possession of the said property was handed over to the petitioner by March 31, 2025. He further submitted that after the writ petition was allowed by the single judge, the licensee of the petrol pump from BPCL, filed a civil suit for declaration, which was not maintainable as he did not have any independent tenancy or lease agreement with the petitioner.

Senior advocate V Giri, appearing for Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, lessee and others submitted the offer was acceptable to them and they were ready and undertook to vacate the premises on or before March 31, 2015.

The court thus directed that the respondent, BPCL would hand over vacant physical possession of the property in question to the petitioner on or before March 31, 2025 and the petitioner had foregone the right to recover the lease rent/mesne profit for the past and future till March 31, 2025 or till handing over possession of the property in question to the petitioner, whichever was earlier.

Court clarified that in case of failure to comply with the direction, the petitioner would be entitled to initiate contempt proceedings in addition to any other remedy which may be available to him.

The bench also directed the civil suit filed by the dealer should be considered as disposed of. 

Court disposed of the matter on account of terms agreed between the parties, without examining the issue of maintainability of writ petition.

Case Title: Delight Grih Nirman Pvt Ltd Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd & Ors