Case: Rahul Yadav  Vs. M/S. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

and the lease deed does lay down that the lessee has the freedom to sublet and appoint another dealer. The lease would remain in force till the dealership of the appellant continued and the licence remained in vogue. At this juncture, it is pertinent to reproduce certain clauses of the dealership agreement which would clearly spell out the purpose. They read as follows:- 2. The Corporation do hereby grant to the Dealer leave and licence and permission for the duration of this Agreement to enter on the said premises and to use the premises and outfit for the sole and exclusive purpose of storing, selling and handling the products purchased by the Dealer from the Corporation, Save as aforesaid, the Dealer shall have no right, title or interest in the said premises or outfit and shall not be entitled to claim the right of lessee, sub-lessee, tenant or any other interest in the premises or outfit, is being specifically agreed and declared in particular that the Dealer shall not be deemed to be in exclusive possession of the premises. 3. This Agreement shall remain in force for five years from 14th day of May, 2002 and continue thereafter for successive periods of one year each until determined by either party by giving three months notice in writing to the other of its intention to terminate this Agreement, and upon the expiration of any such notice this Agreement and the Licence granted as aforesaid shall stand cancelled and revoked but without prejudice to the rights of either party against the other in respect of any matter or thing antecedent to such termination provided that nothing contained in this clause shall prejudice the rights of the corporation to terminate this Agreement earlier on the happening of the events mentioned in clause 56 of this Agreement. xxx xxx xxx 7. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to prohibit the Corporation from making direct and/or indirect sales to any person whomsoever or from appointing other dealers for the purpose of direct or indirect sales at such places as the Corporation may think fit. The dealer shall not be entitled to any claim or allowance for such direct or indirect sales. 17. It is appropriate to mention here that clause 56 of the said agreement stipulates that notwithstanding anything to the contrary containing before the said clause, the Corporation would be at liberty to terminate the agreement forthwith upon any time after happening of certain events. The conditions are manifold. We may, for the sake of completeness, reproduce two conditions:- (h) If the Dealer does not adhere to the instructions issued from time to time by the Corporation in connection with safe practices to be followed by him in the supply/storage of the Corporations products or otherwise. (i) If the Dealer shall deliberately contaminate of temper with the quality of any of the Corporations products. 18. On a plain reading of the aforesaid agreement, it is clear as noon day that it has no connection whatsoever with the lease agreement. Both the agreements are independent of each other. The appellant was a dealer under the lessee, that is, the Corporation. The dealership is liable to be cancelled on many a ground. In case there is a termination, dealership is bound to be cancelled and at that juncture, if the lease deed is treated to have been terminated along with the dealership, it will lead to a situation which does not flow from the interpretation of the instruments. The dealership agreement has been terminated because of the decision rendered by this Court in Mukund Swarup Mishra (supra). The consequence of cancellation of the dealership is a sequitur of the judgment. The inevitable consequence of that is the appellant has to vacate the premises and the Corporation has the liberty to operate either independently or through another dealer. The appellant cannot be allowed to cause obstruction or create an impediment. The submission that the appellant entered into the lease agreement at a monthly rent of Rs.10,000/- as it was given the dealership is a mercurial plea, only to be noted to be rejected. The dealership was availed of as has been held by this Court in an inapposite manner. In such a situation, consequences are to be faced by the appellant. 19. The second issue which has been feebly raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that the 1971 Act would not be applicable has really no force. Admittedly, the respondent is a public sector undertaking. The appellant whose dealership has been cancelled, cannot claim possession to retain possession on the basis of ownership of the land as the lease is in continuance. Therefore, he is a trespasser. Thus, the provisions of the 1971 Act apply on all fours and accordingly we repel the said submission. 20. We will be failing in our duty if we do not take note of another submission which has been alternatively and assiduously canvassed by Mr. Sibal, learned senior counsel for the appellant. It is urged by him as the termination was directed by the Corporation by virtue of the judgment of this Court and not because of any wrong committed by the appellant and hence, his case should be reconsidered for grant of dealership under the new policy. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel for the Corporation has filed the prevalent policy. We do not intend to allude to the same and issue any direction. Once there is a policy and any candidate fits in, needless to say, when there is an advertisement; he is at liberty to apply. We are not disposed to advert to the policy at this juncture. If the policy permits, as we have said, the appellant is at liberty to apply. However, we must clarify that our grant of liberty does not mean that the appellant shall create an impediment for the Corporation to enter into and take possession and run the petrol pump on its own or appoint a dealer.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]18. On a plain reading of the aforesaid agreement, it is clear as noon day that it has no connection whatsoever with the lease agreement. Both the agreements are independent of each other. The appellant was a dealer under the lessee, that is, the Corporation. The dealership is liable to be cancelled on many a ground. In case there is a termination, dealership is bound to be cancelled and at that juncture, if the lease deed is treated to have been terminated along with the dealership, it will lead to a situation which does not flow from the interpretation of the instruments. The dealership agreement has been terminated because of the decision rendered by this Court in Mukund Swarup Mishra (supra). The consequence of cancellation of the dealership is a sequitur of the judgment. The inevitable consequence of that is the appellant has to vacate the premises and the Corporation has the liberty to operate either independently or through another dealer. The appellant cannot be allowed to cause obstruction or create an impediment. The submission that the appellant entered into the lease agreement at a monthly rent of Rs.10,000/as it was given the dealership is a mercurial plea, only to be noted to be rejected. The dealership was availed of as has been held by this Court in an inapposite manner. In such a situation, consequences are to be faced by the appellant19. The second issue which has been feebly raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that the 1971 Act would not be applicable has really no force. Admittedly, the respondent is a public sector undertaking. The appellant whose dealership has been cancelled, cannot claim possession to retain possession on the basis of ownership of the land as the lease is in continuance. Therefore, he is a trespasser. Thus, the provisions of the 1971 Act apply on all fours and accordingly we repel the said submission20. We will be failing in our duty if we do not take note of another submission which has been alternatively and assiduously canvassed by Mr. Sibal, learned senior counsel for the appellant. It is urged by him as the termination was directed by the Corporation by virtue of the judgment of this Court and not because of any wrong committed by the appellant and hence, his case should be reconsidered for grant of dealership under the new policy. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel for the Corporation has filed the prevalent policy. We do not intend to allude to the same and issue any direction. Once there is a policy and any candidate fits in, needless to say, when there is an advertisement; he is at liberty to apply. We are not disposed to advert to the policy at this juncture. If the policy permits, as we have said, the appellant is at liberty to apply. However, we must clarify that our grant of liberty does not mean that the appellant shall create an impediment for the Corporation to enter into and take possession and run the petrol pump on its own or appoint a dealer21. In view of the aforesaid analysis, it is directed that the appellant shall hand over the peaceful possession of the land and the structure and other fixtures standing thereon to the Corporation after demolishing the wall on his own within four weeks hence, failing which he shall be liable for contempt of this Court.