Actual Possession of property is more recognizable than legal possession of the property

Facts:

The Appellant was aggrieved because Bharat petroleum sub-let appellant’s property to a dealer and had neither vacated nor paid any arrears of rent since 2009 because the lease agreement expired in 2009 between the appellant and Bharat Petroleum way back before.

Single judge and Division bench discarded the matter stating the writ was not maintainable under Article 226 power and relegate the appellant to an alternative remedy to avail. Hence this appeal.

Reiterated Principle in a similar case of Bharat Petroleum

A Bench of three judges of this Court in the case of R.Chandramouleeswaran (supra), while considering a similar agreement between the appellant-­BPCL and the dealer, has held that since the appellant tenant was not in actual physical possession, it was not entitled to the protection under the Tenants Act, the said view is bound to even in the facts of the present case.

Observation

As observed by the High Court, the conduct of the respondent No.1­BPCL in continuing with the occupation of the said premises without paying any rent from 31^st December 2009 is unbecoming of a statutory corporation, which is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

Judgment

Appeal allowed.