Case: Bharat Petroleum Corpn.Ltd Vs. P. Kesavan

University vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. and others, (2003) 2 SCC 111 ). Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act is imperative in character and must be construed as such. 15. The maxim generalia specialibus on derogant meaning thereby that general things do not derogate special things shall, thus, apply in the instant case and in that view of the matter ad admittedly the appellant herein has expressed its desire to renew the lease, sub-section (2) of Section 5 read with sub-section (3) of Section 7 thereof shall be attracted. (See Indian Handicrafts Emporium and others vs. Union of India and others (2003) 7 SCC 589 ), D.R. Yadav and Another vs. R.K. Singh and another (2003) 7 SCC 110 ), Union of India and others vs. B.N. Jha, (2003) 4 SCC 531 ), Ashok Leyland Ltd. vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another (2004) (1) SCALE 224 ) and M.P. Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs. M.P. Electricity Board (Civil Appeal No. 2510 of 2002) disposed of on 18.3.2004. 16. Furthermore, Section 11 of the Act provides for a non-obstante clause. An overriding effect, therefore, has been given thereby over all other laws for the time being in force. 17. In Aswini Kumar Ghose and Another vs. Arabinda Bose and Another (AIR 1952 SC 369 ), it was observed: ".. The enacting part of a statute must, where it is clear, be taken to control the non obstante clause where both cannot be read harmoniously, for, even apart from such clause, a later law abrogate earlier, laws clearly inconsistent with it. Posteriores leges priores contrarias abrogant (Broomes Legal Maxims, Edn. 10 p. 347). Here, s. 2 entitles every Advocate of the Supreme Court as of right to practice in any High Court in India." 18. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the legislative scheme contained in the said Act leads to only one conclusion that if Government company expresses its desire to renew the lease, the same would stand renewed on the same terms and conditions. 19. Section 5(2) and Section 7(3) of the Act are required to be given its purposive meaning, having regard to the object and purport the statute seeks to achieve. The Central Government by reason of the provisions of the said Act acquired running business undertakings dealing in distribution and marketing of petroleum products. The leases or tenancy for outlets are, therefore, continued to be kept with the Central Government or the Government company, as the case may be, so that no let or hindrance is placed in the matter of distribution of the products from established retails outlets, unless alternate arrangements are made. Having regard to the object of the Act, as noticed hereinbefore, it is difficult to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents to the effect that the expression mere desire by the Central Government or the appellant was not enough and they were required to show something more, as for example existence of need for renewal of the lease. The central Government of the Government company is a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. There are required to act fairly. It is not the case of the respondents herein that desire to get the lease renewed was actuated by any malice or ill-will or the same was otherwise unfair and unreasonable. In that view of the matter, it is difficult to construe Section 5(32) of the Act as not laying down a law not contemplating automatic renewal of the lease.20. The provisions of the Transfer of Property Act have no application in a case where a transfer of property takes place by operation of law. 21. In Harishchandra Hegde vs. State of Karnataka and others 2004(1) SCALE 48, it was held: "By reason of an order passed under Section 4 of the Act, the lands are directed to be restored in the event the illegalities specified therein are discovered. The consequences contained in Section 5 of the Act applies automatically in the event an order under Section 4 of the Act is passed. Section 4 of the Act contains a non-obstante clause. The said provision would, thus, apply notwithstanding anything contained in any agreement or any other Act for the time being in force. The Act is a special Act whereas the Transfer of Property Act is a general Act and in that view of the matter also Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act will have no application and the consequences contained in Section 5 would prevail.Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act applies to inter vivos transfers. It, as noticed hereinbefore, does not apply to a transfer made by operation of law. If a judicial order is passed restoring the land back to a member of Scheduled Tribes in terms of the purport and object of the statute, the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be applied in such a case. The matter is governed by a special statute. Unless there exists a provision therein, an order passed there under cannot be supplanted or supplemented with reference to another statute." CONCLUSION: 22. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgments cannot be sustained and are set aside accordingly.23. Before parting with this case, we may, however, place on records the statements made by Mr. M.A. Krishna Moorthy to the effect that the appellant is not interested in having the second renewal and the possession of leasehold shall be handed over the respondent herein on the expiry of the tenure of the renewed lease i.e. tenure of the lease. With a view to do complete justice between the parties, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we direct that the appellant herein shall pay a sum of equivalent to 10 times of the original rental with effect from the date on which the original deed of lease expired. This order shall, however, not be treated as a precedent. 24.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]18. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the legislative scheme contained in the said Act leads to only one conclusion that if Government company expresses its desire to renew the lease, the same would stand renewed on the same terms and5(2) and Section 7(3) of the Act are required to be given its purposive meaning, having regard to the object and purport the statute seeks to achieve. The Central Government by reason of the provisions of the said Act acquired running business undertakings dealing in distribution and marketing of petroleum products. The leases or tenancy for outlets are, therefore, continued to be kept with the Central Government or the Government company, as the case may be, so that no let or hindrance is placed in the matter of distribution of the products from established retails outlets, unless alternate arrangements are made. Having regard to the object of the Act, as noticed hereinbefore, it is difficult to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents to the effect that the expression mere desire by the Central Government or the appellant was not enough and they were required to show something more, as for example existence of need for renewal of the lease. The central Government of the Government company is a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. There are required to act fairly. It is not the case of the respondents herein that desire to get the lease renewed was actuated by any malice or ill-will or the same was otherwise unfair and unreasonable. In that view of the matter, it is difficult to construe Section 5(32) of the Act as not laying down a law not contemplating automatic renewal of the lease.20. The provisions of the Transfer of Property Act have no application in a case where a transfer of property takes place by operation ofthe reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgments cannot be sustained and are set aside accordingly.23. Before parting with this case, we may, however, place on records the statements made by Mr. M.A. Krishna Moorthy to the effect that the appellant is not interested in having the second renewal and the possession of leasehold shall be handed over the respondent herein on the expiry of the tenure of the renewed lease i.e. tenure of the lease. With a view to do complete justice between the parties, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we direct that the appellant herein shall pay a sum of equivalent to 10 times of the original rental with effect from the date on which the original deed of lease expired. This order shall, however, not be treated as a precedent.