IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.11.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.A.No.1767 of 2003 The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited rep.by its Regional Manager 3rd Floor, A.P.Arcade (Singapore Plaza) 333, Cross Cut Road Coimbatore 641 012 .. Appellant -vs- 1. R.Subramaniam 2. R.Muthusamy 3. R.Chinnadurai @ Subramaniam 4. M/s Rangasamy Naidu & Sons Dealer, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 100, Palladam Road, Pollachi Coimbatore District 642 001 .. Respondents Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 28.03.2003 made in W.P.No.1131 of 2003, filed under article 227 constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Ist Respondent Corporation a statutory tenant under the Esso (Acquisition of undertakings in India) Act 1974 to vacate surrender, deliver and hand over the possession of property in TS.No.487 & Door No.100, Palladam Road, Pollachi, Coimbatore District to the petitioner. For Appellant :: Mr.P.Ragunatha Reddy for M/s King & Partridge For Respondents :: Mr.Palani Selvaraj for R1 to R3 No appearance for R4 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by D.MURUGESAN, J.) The writ appeal, at the instance of M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, is directed against the order in the writ petition directing the Corporation to vacate, surrender, deliver and handover possession of the property in T.S.No.487 & Door No.100, Palladam Road, Pollachi, Coimbatore to the respondents 1 to 3 herein. That writ petition came to be filed by the respondents 1 to 3 on the ground that they are the owners of the aforesaid property and had let https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the same to the appellant-Corporation for rent. As the appellant- Corporation did not vacate the said premises on request, the writ petition came to be filed for the relief which was granted. The writ petition was allowed on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and another v. Dolly Das, (1999) 4 SCC 450. 2. In support of this writ appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant has brought to our notice the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and another v. N.R.Vairamani and another, (2004) 5 CTC 74. In that judgment, the Supreme Court, while distinguishing its earlier judgment in Dolly Das case and by placing reliance on the provisions of Sections 3 & 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act which give certain rights to the tenants, ultimately, held that the right of the landlord is only to approach the civil Court or the Court concerned seeking for eviction and cannot file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. This is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 in this writ appeal. That apart, we are informed that the respondents 1 to 3 had also filed a rent control petition seeking for eviction, which was dismissed and the matter is pending before this Court in a civil revision petition. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and another v. N.R.Vairamani and another, (2004) 5 CTC 74, we hold that the writ petition is not maintainable and, accordingly, the order passed in the writ petition is set aside. The writ appeal is allowed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ss To 1. The Regional Manager Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited 3rd Floor, A.P.Arcade (Singapore Plaza) 333, Cross Cut Road Coimbatore 641 012 1 cc To M/s.King & Patridge, Advocate, SR.84517 W.A.No.1767 of 2003 BVN (CO) RH (15.12.10) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/