IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 16TH MAGHA 1930 OP.No. 28428 of 2002(H) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- THE TROPICAL PLANTATIONS LTD., TELEGRAPH OFFICE ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS WHOLETIME DIRECTOR, SRI.P.T.THOMAS BY ADVS. MR.JOSEPH MARKOSE, SENIOR ADVOCATE MR.THOMAS VELLAPPALLY RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., 1 RANGANATHAN GARDENS, OFF 11TH MAIN ROAD, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 040 2. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. DR.SALIM ALI ROAD, TATAPURAM P.O., COCHIN 682024 R1, R2 BY ADV. MR.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NO.48302/2002 IN OP. NO.28428/2002 Dismissed 05.02.2009 SD/- V.GIRI, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DT. 20.4.79. P2:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 15.12.1997 FROM THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 10.3.98 FROM PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 18.6.98 FROM PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 2.7.98 FROM RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER. P6:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 7.8.98 FROM PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT. P7;- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 30.3.99 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN OP. 7647/99. P8:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 28.5.99 FROM RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER. P9:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 19.6.99 FROM PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT. P10:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 20.11.99 FROM RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER. P11:- COPY OF THE DRAFT AGREEMENT AND LEASE DEED FORWARDED BY RESPONDENT. P12:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 21.1.2000 FROM PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT. P13:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 4.12.2000 FROM PETITIONER'S COUNSEL TO RESPONDENT. P14:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 18.4.01 FROM RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER. P15:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 12.9.2001 FOM PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss V.GIRI, J ------------------- O.P.28428/2002 -------------------- Dated this the 5th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner sought for a renewal of Ext.P1 lease deed. While seeking renewal, respondent forwarded the draft renewal deed. Petitioner had initially taken up an objection to certain clauses in the draft lease deed. The principal objections were in relation to the permission that the lessee sought to retain, to carry on any other business in the demised premises. Second objection related to the facility to carry on any other activity, in the adjacent property. Ext.P12 letter was given by the petitioner to the respondent Company and since they did not completely accept the petitioner’s request, the writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:- (i). Declare that the respondents will be entitled to continue occupation of the property leased to it by the petitioner only on payment of the agreed enhanced rent and execution of a fresh deed of O.P.28428/2002 2 lease on the other terms and conditions as applicable in Ext.P1. (ii). Issue an interim direction to the respondent to pay the agreed enhanced rent from 1.4.1998 as mentioned in Ext.P11 pending disposal of the Original petition. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in which the stand originally taken has been diluted to a great extent. Paragraph 4 of the same reads as follows:- Dealing with the clauses objected to by the petitioner in Ext.P12, this respondent submits as given herein below:- (i). For the words 'or any other trade or business that can conveniently be carried on in the demises premises by the lessee or its licencee' appearing in the first recital clause can be changed with 'any associated business' instead of 'or any other trade or business' (ii). As regards the modification suggested to clauses 2(ii) and 3(iii) of O.P.28428/2002 3 Ext.P11 draft lease, this respondent has no objection to such modification. In fact, this recital sought for by the petitioner has also been incorporated in the lease deed. 3. I heard Mr.Joseph Kodianthara, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.N.Sugunapalan, learned senior counsel for the respondent. 4. It seems to be clear that what was found to be objectionable by the respondent earlier, has undergone a change. Any residuary dispute can be sorted out in a meeting between the representatives of the petitioner and the respondents. Accordingly, writ petition is closed, recording the stand taken in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit. A renewed lease deed may be executed between the parties, if necessary, after another meeting between the representatives of the petitioner and the respondent. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs