No legally enforceable right to retain possession exists following the expiry and non-renewal of a lease deed.

Petitioner No. 1 (BPCL), a public sector undertaking formerly known as Burmah Shell Oil Company, operated a retail petrol outlet at Old Bus Stand, Raipur, on land leased from the State since 1964

The lease deeds for the site expired on 31.03.1992 and 31.03.2008, respectively

BPCL failed to apply for renewal timely, citing delays in updating revenue records to reflect its name change

On 25.11.2014, the Municipal Corporation, Raipur (Respondent No. 4), issued a notice (Annexure P6) directing the dealer to vacate the premises within seven days to facilitate road widening and multi-level parking construction

The High Court granted an interim status quo order on 03.12.2014, which continued until the final hearing

During the pendency of the petition, BPCL filed applications for mutation and lease renewal

The court applied the fundamental principle of property law that a lessee’s right to occupy land terminates upon the expiry of the lease deed by efflux of time unless the lease is formally renewed

It also prioritized the principle of "public interest" over private commercial rights, particularly concerning urban infrastructure projects such as road widening and public parking in congested municipal areas

The Court found that the petitioners’ right to occupy the premises was derived solely from the 1964 lease deed, which had admittedly expired decades and years prior to the litigation

The Court reasoned that without a formal renewal, the petitioners have no vested or legally enforceable right to remain in possession

Addressing the respondents' arguments, the Court noted that the petrol pump was situated in the "busiest vicinity" of Raipur and acted as a hindrance to necessary public works, including a multi-level parking facility and road widening

Although BPCL argued that renewal applications were pending, the Court held that the mere filing of such applications during litigation does not create a right to quash an eviction notice issued in the public interest

The Court emphasized that the petitioners’ continued operation for several years was largely due to the strength of the interim order rather than a substantive legal right

Consequently, the Court declined to quash the impugned notice and disposed of the writ petition

The interim order dated 03.12.2014 was discharged, and the Municipal Corporation was granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with the law

The petitioners were permitted to pursue their pending renewal and mutation applications before the appropriate state authorities