M/S. Hill Top Service Station vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Hill Top Service Station, a partnership firm, filed two writ petitions challenging the actions of various respondents, including the State of Telangana and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (IOCL). The petitioner sought to prevent interference with its peaceful possession and business operations at a petrol retail outlet. The core issue stemmed from the expiry of a lease agreement for the premises. The petitioner claimed the respondents, particularly police authorities, interfered with their business without proper authority, citing a minor customer dispute. Additionally, the petitioner sought directions to allot an alternative site and restore the supply of petroleum products, which had been stopped by IOCL. The respondents, including IOCL, contended that the lease had expired in 2023, the petitioner was no longer an authorized occupant, and a prior order from a coordinate bench directed the petitioner to vacate the premises.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had no locus standi to continue in the subject property and lacked a valid license to operate the retail outlet. The lease deed for the premises had expired in 2023, and IOCL had surrendered the site to the Commissioner of Police. The Court noted that a coordinate bench had previously directed the petitioner to vacate the premises within one week of receiving the order. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Syed Sugara Zaidi v. Laeeq Ahmad, the Court emphasized that after the expiry of a lease period and determination of tenancy, a lessee continuing in possession without the lessor's assent becomes a tenant by sufferance, liable for eviction. The Court found that the petitioner had no rights to seek renewal of the lease as IOCL had already surrendered the land. Consequently, the petitioner was directed to abide by the previous order to vacate the premises. The Court dismissed both writ petitions, stating that any non-compliance with the coordinate bench's order would amount to contempt of court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, M/s. Hill Top Service Station, has the legal right to continue operating its petrol retail outlet at premises No. 5-3-297, Ghoshamahal, Hyderabad, after the expiry of the lease agreement and revocation of the NOC and Form-B license. (This issue turns on the interpretation of lease agreements, license regulations, and the effect of prior court orders). 2. Whether the actions of the police authorities in interfering with the petitioner's business operations were arbitrary, illegal, and violative of constitutional rights, particularly in light of a minor customer dispute. 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an alternative site for relocation and restoration of petroleum supply. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the respondents' actions were arbitrary, illegal, a colorable exercise of power, and violated principles of natural justice and constitutional rights (Articles 14, 19, 21, 300-A). They argued for continued possession pending the disposal of a civil suit for eviction and sought directions for alternative site allotment and restoration of supply. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, particularly IOCL, argued that the lease had expired in 2023, the petitioner was not an authorized person to continue business, the site had been surrendered to the Commissioner of Police, and the petitioner lacked a valid license. They relied on a previous High Court order directing the petitioner to vacate the premises.