Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:112700-DB Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20898 of 2025 Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Sagar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Komal Mehrotra,Puneet Agarwal Hon'ble Arindam Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J. (Per: Arindam Sinha, J) 1. Petitioner seeks to challenge communication dated 8th May, 2025 issued in response to petitioner's letter dated 28th March, 2025 to respondent no.2 (the oil company) requiring execution of a sub-lease. Prayers in the alternative have also been made. 2. Today is returnable day as directed by us on order dated 7th July, 2025, when the writ petition moved and time obtained on behalf of the oil company, for issuance of instructions. Mr Puneet Agarwal, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3 (the oil company) and prays for time to file counter affidavit. On query he submits, he has received instructions. He submits further, only letter of intent (LoI) was issued to petitioner. Commissioning of the petrol pump will involve huge expenditure by his client. As such, on the lessor of petitioner having had died during pendency of the lease, his client requires fresh lease to be executed by the widow and two sons, one of whom is minor. The widow, as guardian of the minor son, needs to obtain leave of Court for executing the lease. 3. Mr Shiv Sagar Singh, appearing on behalf of petitioner submits, his client had applied on strength of lease granted by the lessor, since deceased. Requisitions and formalities to be complied with took time. Death of the lessor in the meantime does not automatically cause the lease to have come to an end. The oil company cannot require his client to obtain fresh lease on application made for permission under section 8 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. He submits further, there stands already made order dated 17th February, 2025 by the Court of Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court-I in case no.33 of 2024, whereby the widow was directed to act on behalf of the minor son, as natural guardian. 4. We have perused lease deed dated 22nd December, 2018. There is provision in the lease for it to end on the dealership not granted. Case of the oil company is that upon obtaining due permission from Court and execution of fresh lease by the heirs of the deceased-lessor it will proceed, pursuant to the LoI, to allot the dealership. By reason of the lessor having died, the oil company has apprehension of contingency of future dispute as may be raised against the lease by the presently minor son. Hence, requirement of fresh lease. In any event, the oil company further contends, requisite lease period of 19 years and 11 months cannot now be fulfilled. On query Mr. Agarwal submits, the LoI has not been cancelled. 5. Petitioner applied on strength of registered lease dated 22nd December, 2018. As on date of his application, petitioner fulfilled requirement of being lessee in respect of the land offered for 19 years and 11 months. The criterion of lease period, even if taken as essential criterion, stood satisfied. Accordingly the LoI stood issued. 6. Owner of the land executed aforesaid lease deed dated 22nd December, 2018. The transfer of interest in the land to petitioner was by a registered deed. There is no term in the deed saying that the lease will end on death of the lessor, if happens before expiry of the term. Petitioner was required to pay lease rent. On query Mr. Singh submits, there has not been default. So much so, widow of the lessor has submitted affidavit dated 24th February, 2025 to the oil company, immediately pursuant to the Fast Track Court naming her as natural guardian of the son, who is still minor. 7. The oil company's position is appreciated as being duly diligent to avoid future complications as might arise after it has caused investment. In event the allotment is not made, the lease will end. Such a consequence is not seen as benefiting the minor's interest. We see from the widow's petition to the Fast Track Court, she had applied for permission to execute fresh lease. Statement in her petition regarding her cause of action says so. In the circumstances, the Fast Track Court having appointed her as natural guardian cannot be seen as withholding permission for the widow to act. As aforesaid, she has submitted affidavit dated 24th February, 2025 pursuant to order dated 17th February, 2025 of the Fast Track Court. 8. By reason of our view that the original lease binds parties to it, we find substantial compliance by petitioner, of the requirements made by the oil company. 9. Respondent nos.2 and 3 (the oil company) will forthwith issue allotment of the dealership to petitioner. For the purpose, the oil company may obtain indemnity from petitioner on all consequences of non-payment of lease rent and/or breach of any lease covenant made by him as lessee. 10. Petitioner will communicate certified copy of this order to respondent nos.2 and 3 for obtaining the allotment within two weeks therefrom. We record that we have heard contentions of the oil company, made on its behalf on instructions issued, without waiting for counter being filed as the facts are before us. 11. The writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 RKK/- (Arindam Sinha, J) (Dr Y K Srivastava, J) Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR KANNAUJIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad