- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32983 WP No. 21875 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 21875 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: GARDEN CITY SERVICE STATION REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 RAMMURTHY NAGAR BANASWADI VILLAGE BENGALURU - 560 016 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS 1 MR. SIDDIQ PASHA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O MAHAPOOBA PASHA 2 MRS. AMREEN SULTANA PASHA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS W/O MR. SIDDIQ PASHA …PETITIONERS (BY SRI V.B.SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI T.R.SAINATH S/O T.S.RAJAGOPAL SETTY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.13 4TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU - 560 018. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32983 WP No. 21875 of 2025 2. SMT. T.SUNITHA SAINATH W/O T.R.SAINATH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.13, 4TH CROSS 5TH MAIN, CHAMARAJPET BENGALURU - 560 018. 3. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER NO.28, 1ST FLOOR BENGALURU DIVISIONAL OFFICE MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI C.VINAY SWAMY, ADVOCATE C/R1 AND R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 16.07.2025 ON IA NO. 4 PASSED BY THE LXXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH 83) WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A; CONSEQUENTLY, PASS ORDER ALLOWING APPLICATION IA NO. 4 FILED BY THE PETITIONER SEEKING IMPLEADMENT IN COM. OS 1503/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE LXXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH 83) WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32983 WP No. 21875 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners – proposed defendants / impleading applicants are before this Court calling in question an order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the LXXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-83), rejecting an application – I.A.No.4 filed by the petitioners under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC seeking permission to implead petitioner No.2 as a party defendant in the Commercial O.S.No.1503/2024. 2. Heard Sri V.B.Shivakumar, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri C.Vinay Swamy, learned counsel for respondents. 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are the owners of the suit property and have let it out to M/s.Indian Oil Corporation Limited (for short ‘IOC’) - respondent No.3 herein – defendant in the Commercial O.S.No.1503/2024. Respondent No.3 – IOC is said to have entered into a dealership agreement with the present petitioners to run a petroleum outlet in the said property belonging to the plaintiffs. The dealership - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32983 WP No. 21875 of 2025 contract is between the IOC and the petitioners. The plaintiffs institute a suit for eviction of the defendant – IOC, the suit has progressed and at the fag end of the trial, the petitioners file an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC seeking permission to implead themselves in Com.O.S.No.1503/2024, on the ground that they are proper and a necessary party to the proceedings, on the strength of a dealership agreement, with the IOC. The concerned Court after noticing the fact that there was no privity of contract between the petitioners and the owners of the property, as the dealership agreement was between the owners of the property and the Indian Oil Corporation, rejects the same. Rejection of which has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. 4. Sri V.B.Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the lease though, is entered into between the IOC and the owners of the property, the lease itself recognizes the right of the IOC to let it out to its agents, dealers or anybody as the case would be. Therefore, the petitioners have a right to implead themselves into the proceedings. The learned counsel would further submit that in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32983 WP No. 21875 of 2025 the event, the decree is drawn in favour of the owners of the property, the effect would be felt by the petitioners and therefore, the application ought to have been allowed by the concerned Court. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 – plaintiffs would submit that there is no contract between the plaintiffs and the petitioners; it is between the IOC and the plaintiffs in terms drawn by them. Learned counsel would seek to place reliance upon certain clauses of the lease agreement entered between respondent Nos.1 and 2 – plaintiffs. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The only issue that falls for consideration at this juncture is, whether the petitioners would be proper and necessary parties in the proceedings, in Com.O.S.No.1503/2024, instituted by the plaintiffs against the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, seeking their eviction inter alia. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32983 WP No. 21875 of 2025 8. In the proceedings before the concerned Court, the petitioners file the application seeking impleadment at the fag end of the trial. This is rejected. The reasons so rendered by the concerned Court to reject the application are as follows: “8. Point No. 1: I have gone through the lease deed marked as Ex.P.1 which is between the plaintiff and the Defendant, as per the agreement there is no clause on sub-lease to 3rd person. The period of lease were mentioned in Ex.P.1 in Condition No.9 "if the lessee shall be desirous of renewing this present lease after a period of 20 years and of such desire shall have given to the lessors not less than three months notice prior to the expiration hereof and shall have duly observed and performed all the terms and conditions, hereof, the lessors shall grant to them a renewal lease of the said premises for a further period of 5 years at mutually agreeable terms and a fresh document may be executed by the lessee and the lessors for the further extension of the lease". As per the condition 9 the lease period is 20 years from the date of execution. The lease period was executed on 05.03.2024 and the lease period were end on 04.03.2024. Therefore, the lease period as per lease agreement is already over. 9. In the lease period condition No.1 in page No. 5 it has mentioned as, "the lessee shall use the schedule for the storage and sale of petroleum products, motor accessories or for service station and allied activities etc., and for all such purposes the lessee shall have liberty to make excavation therein for embedding tanks and construct and erect thereon any buildings, pumping plant and accessories as may be necessary. They shall have the full freedom of access over suitable approaches thereto for their workmen, servants, agents and customers and for the passage of lorries, cars and all other vehicles to maintain supplies and otherwise for working the depot." Except, this term there is no any privity of contract with the proposed - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32983 WP No. 21875 of 2025 defendant by the plaintiff as well as the defendant. Therefore, there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff with the proposed defendant. 10. As above stated that, the lease period was already expired on 04.03.2024. But the Defendant has entered the dealership agreement for commencing a period from 27.03.2017 is not acceptable, at that time there is no lease period after 04.03.2024. Therefore, the application filed by the proposed defendant is not admissible under law. Hence, I answer this point in the Negative. 11. Point No.2: Accordingly, I pass the following; ORDER The I.A. No.4 filed by the proposed Defendant No.2 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC is hereby dismissed.” (Emphasis added) It is an admitted fact that there is no contract between the petitioners and the owners of the property, but the lease agreement, is between the defendant i.e., the IOC and the plaintiffs to set up a petroleum unit. Therefore, the petitioners cannot have a better right than what respondent No.3 - defendant – IOC, has. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to place reliance upon clause 6 of the lease agreement entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendant. It reads as follows: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32983 WP No. 21875 of 2025 “6) After the erection of the Retail Outlet on the schedule property, the Lessee shall be at liberty to allot the same to their agents or dealers for all or any of the purposes for which they are demised, without restriction and reference to the Lessors.” (Emphasis added) Clause 6 would recognize the right of the IOC to let out the premises to its agents or dealers as the case would be. It would not mean that the owners of the property are bound by what the IOC would do. The learned counsel for the petitioners has rightly placed reliance upon the afore-quoted clause, which binds only the IOC, and the owners of the property. 10. Learned counsel for respondents – plaintiffs would place reliance upon the Retail Outlet Dealership Agreement of respondent No.3. Clause 8(d) of the Retail Outlet Dealership Agreement reads as follows: “8 (d) Leave & Licence:- The Corporation doth hereby grant to the Dealer leave and Leave & 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- - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32983 WP No. 21875 of 2025 lessee, tenant or any other interest in the premises, outfit, or, it being specifically agreed and declared in particular that the Dealer shall not be deemed to be in exclusive possession of the premises.” (Emphasis added) It would become apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court on somewhat identical circumstance where the lessee was seeking to claim an independent right, without there being a privity of contract with the owner of the property again of a petroleum outlet, in the case of DELIGHT GRIH NIRMAN PVT. LTD. VS. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. reported in 2024 INSC 696. The Apex Court has held as follows: “4. During the hearing of the present Special Leave Petition, Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, made an offer that the petitioner is ready to forego all the arrears of rent and mesne profit, in case vacant physical possession of the said property is handed over to the petitioner by 31.03.2025. He further submitted that after the writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge in favour of the petitioner herein, the newly added respondent no.5, the licensee of the petrol pump from BPCL, filed Civil Suit No. 275 of 2023 titled as ‘Hind Service Station v. Delight Grih Nirman Pvt. Ltd. And others’ for declaration, which was not maintainable as he did not have any independent tenancy/lease agreement with the petitioner. It was filed just with a view to prolong - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32983 WP No. 21875 of 2025 the litigation and to create hindrance in vacation of the premises by lessee. 5. To the aforesaid offer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 on instructions submitted that offer made by the petitioner is acceptable. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited/lessee is ready and undertakes to vacate the premises and hand over vacant physical possession of the property in dispute to the petitioner on or before 31.03.2025. 6. Mr. Utpal Mazumdar, learned counsel for the newly added respondent No.5 who appeared online, sought to raise the issue that he has independent right to protect his possession of the premises in dispute. Hence, he cannot be evicted in the manner being agreed upon by the BPCL/lessee and lessor. We do not find any merit in the argument as there is no privity of contract between the respondent No.5 and the petitioner herein, and the privity of contract is between the petitioner and BPCL. Once lessee forgoes his tenancy in agreed terms on the premises in question and ready to vacate, the respondent No. 5 who has licence to operate the petrol pump on the said premises cannot acquire any independent right without having any privity of contract with petitioner. 7. In response to the argument raised by the learned counsel for the respondent No.5, Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4, submitted that in case the respondent No.5 locates any other suitable place, acceptable to BPCL, his request for grant of licence may be considered favourably but he is having no right to object to the above agreed terms as recorded whereby the BPCL is being benefited. 8. We may add here that we have not examined the issue of maintainability of the writ petition as the matter is being disposed of on account of terms agreed between the parties. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in our view, the present Special Leave Petition can be disposed of with the following directions. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32983 WP No. 21875 of 2025 (i) The respondent (BPCL) shall hand over vacant physical possession of the property in question to the petitioner on or before 31.03.2025. (ii) The petitioner has foregone the right to recover the lease rent/mesne profit for the past and future till 31.03.2025 or till handing over possession of the property in question to the petitioner, whichever is earlier. (iii) In case of failure to comply the direction Nos. (i) & (ii), the petitioner shall be entitled to initiate contempt proceedings in addition to any other remedy which may be available to him. (iv) Title Suit No.275 of 2023 titled as ‘Hind Station v. Delight Grih Nirman Pvt. Ltd. and others’ pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) at Sealdah shall be treated as disposed of on production of copy of this order.” (Emphasis supplied) In the light of the aforesaid circumstance and the preceding analysis, owing to the judgment of the Apex Court as afore-quoted, the petition deserves to be rejected and the order of the concerned Court sustains. 11. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26