- (1.) On December 18, 1957 Burma Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company of India Ltd., a foreign petroleum company took on lease of premises No. 14A, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Calcutta from M/s. Pyne Properties Pvt. Ltd. for running a petrol pump. The lease was initially for ten years that was from time to time renewed. On December 28, 1970 Burma Shell appointed M/s. Howrah Motor Pvt. Ltd. as their dealer to run the said petrol pump. On January 24, 1976 Burma Shell was taken over by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., a public sector undertaking. By virtue of the said take over the new Government company became the lessee in place of Burma Shell under Pyne Properties Pvt. Ltd. Pyne Properties transferred the ownership to M/s. Atindra Pvt. Ltd., a company virtually run by Dey family, having the management and control of Howrah Motor Company Ltd. In effect, Howrah Motor, in addition to the dealership of the petrol pump got the ownership too. On January 18, 1982, the Calcutta Tikha Tenancy Act, 1981 came in force. Initially there had been a confusion as to the definition of "Tikha Tenant" as to whether the petrol pump could come within the mischief of the said Act of 1981. Series of litigations reached up to the Apex Court label.
(2.) Ultimately, a Full Bench decision in the case of Lakshmi Moni Das & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal, 1987 AIR(Cal) 326 and the Division Bench decision in the case of Jatadhari Daw Vs. Smt. Radha Debi, 1986 1 CalHN 21 attained finality on the issue when the State withdrew the appeal pending against the High Court decision in the case of Jatadhari Daw that followed the Full Bench decision in the case of Lakshmi Moni Das . During the period when the issue remained unsettled, Bharat Petroleum filed a writ petition and obtained an order inter alia permitting them to deposit the rent to the Registrar, Original Side month by month.
(3.) Such direction would appear from the orders dated December 13, 1988 and January 10, 1989 appearing at pages 154-164 of the paper book. By the said orders the appeal stood disposed of, however the writ petition was kept pending. Bharat Petroleum was however regularly depositing the rent as they claimed before us. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on July 17, 2008 by passing the following order : "None appears on behalf of the petitioner even at the time of second call of this matter. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent no. 11 that due to efflux of time, no relief is required to be granted to the petitioner in this writ application. Be that as it may, this writ application is dismissed for default. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.";