SOMASUNDARAM Vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order passed by the 1st respondent refusing to resite the petitioner's retail outlet from the present location to another location.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he is a retail dealer under the 1st respondent. He entered into a lease agreement in respect of the property situate at R.S.No.649/6, Modakkurichi Village, Erode Taluk with one Shanmugam on 13.03.1984 for a period of 15 years and has been running the retail outlet

(3.) MR.Valliappan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there are some facts which were wrongly stated by mistake. He particularly pointed out from paragraph 8 of the plaint filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.9 of 2011 that after expiry of lease period of 15 years which ended on 13.06.1999, it was renewed orally for further period of 15 years. However, by mistake it has been stated as if the lease period was renewed in the year 2009 by Shanmugam. The learned counsel pointed out that it is only by mistake, the facts have been wrongly given and the same is incorporated in the impugned order. In view of the high handedness of the second and third respondents, the petitioner seeks resitation of the outlet. However, MR.R.Ravi, learned counsel for first respondent submits that as per the existing rule and circular, the civil proceedings between the landlord and retailer has to reach this court and then only the outlet could be resited.