ivil Appeal No 567 of 1987
From the Judgment and Order dated 1211987 of the Bombay High Court in W 
No l24 1987
R Agarwala for the Appellant
Dr LM Singhvi PK Banerjee SK Jain L A Kriplani
Dr AM Singhvi and section Bandopadhya for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BC RAY J
The member of society Mrs Maya Inderson Israni who has been allotted the flat No62 on 6th floor of Nibhana Building by the disputant No2 the Nibhana Co operative Housing Society
Ltd and the society filed a dispute before the Judge Fifth Cooperative Court at Bombay for recovery of possession of the said flat from the opponents who are the appellants in this appeal and for mesne profits in respect of the flat alleging inter alia that the appellants were inducted in th flat without the written consent of the Society as a licencee on the basis of a leave and licence agreement which was a renewed from time to time till some time in 1972 and on Ist October 1972 the member that is the respondent No2 terminated the licence and called upon the appellant to remove itself from the said flat
Thereafter an advocate s Letter dated 1st October 1972 was sent by the respondent No 2 to the appellant for vacating the flat
The appellant having failed to comply with the request a dispute was filed by the HT ASSOCIATES vs MRS
MAYA RAY
J member as well as the Co operative Society for eviction of the appellants from the flat as well as for mesne profits
The plea of the appellants was that they were continuing in possession of the flat on the basis of a leave and licence agreement by payment of licence fee uptill now and as such the dispute does not come within section 91 of the Co operative Societies Act as they have become tenants under section 15 of Bombay Rent Act
The Co operative Court after hearing the parties made an award holding that the dispute fell within the jurisdicton of the Co operative Court as the appellant claimed to be h possession of the flat as a licencee through the member of the society which is a Co partnership Housing Society under the Maharashtra Co operative Societies Act
It was also held that the appellant was occupying the flats in question as a trespasser after the licence in favour of appellant was terminated
There was no subsisting licence to occupy the flat by the appellants on 1st February
1973 and so Section 15 of the Bombay Rent Act was not applicable to it
An appeal was filed by the appellant before the appellate authority
The said appeal was dismissed and the order of the Co operative Court was upheld
The appellants filed a writ petition No 1 4 of 1987 before the High Court of Bombay under Article 227 of the Constitution
The said Writ Petition was dismissed by the High Court
Hence this appeal by Special Leave has been filed by the appellant
In view of our judgment in CA No 472 of 1985 this appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs
The decree will not be executed for a period of four months from the date of this order subject to the appellant s filling an usual undertaking within a period of two weeks from today to the effect that the appellant will not transfer
assign or encumber the flat in question in any manner whatsoever and on undertaking that he will hand over peaceful possession of the flat in question to the respondent on or before the expiry of the aforesaid period and he will go on paying the occupation charges equivalent to the amount he had been paying for each month by the 7th of succeeding month
In default of compliance of any of these terms the decree shall become executable forthwith
N VK
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The Esso Eastern Inc a Company Organised and existing under U section Laws was engaged in the business of distributing and marketing petroleum products manufactured by Esso Standard Refining Co of India Ltd and Lube India Ltd and had established places of business in India
In order to provide residential accommodation to its employees the Co had taken on leave and licence basis Flat No 35 in Block No X in the Housing Colony known as Shyam Niwas situate at Warden Road now called Bhulabhai Desai Road Bombay for a period of one year in terms of the agreement in writing dt
28th Nov 1968 from one Smt
Nanki M Malkani a member of the Co operative Society
On 4th Dec 1968 Respondent No 1 Shyam Cooperative Housing Society Ltd passed a resolution admitting Petitioner No 2 TJ Mansuknani an employee of the Co as a nominal member of the Society though he was not the licencee
The period of lease was initially renewed at the instance of the licensor for one year
On 29th Nov 1971 Ms Malkani wrote a letter to the Company saying that the agreement for lease and licence was due to expire on that date hence the period of licence be renewed yearly from time to time for 3 years on the expiry of each term of the licence
On this basis the lease period stood extended till Nov 30 1973
In the meanwbile the State of Maharashtra enacted Act 17 of 1973
Since the Esso Standard Inc was in fact in occupation of the flat in question as on 1st Feb 1973 it acquired the status of a tenant under PG NO 44 PG NO 45 section 15A of the Act
On 13th March 1974 the Esso Acquisition of Undertakings in India Act 1974 came into force and from that date by virtue of subsection 1 of section 5 of the Act the Central Govt
was deemed to be the tenant of the flat in question
By a letter of 9th April 1975 sent by Ms Malkani Res 2 to the Petr
she affirmed the terms and conditions of the licence and by her subsequent communications she informed that the Petr
who is successor in interest of Esso Eastern Inc to whom she had given the flat continues in possession on the same terms and conditions of the lease
On 11th Sept 1980 the Society passed a resolution calling upon the Petr
Corporation to vacate the premises and asked Ms Malkani Res 2 for occupying the flat herself
Upon the Petitioner s failure to vacate the premises the Society on September 15 1986 filed an application under section 911 of the Maharashtra Co operative Society Act 1960 before the 3rd Co operative Court Bombay for eviction of the petitioner and its employee
On January 1981 Petitioner No 1 permitted its another employee to occupy the flat
The 3rd Cooperative Court after considering evidence led by the parties dismissed the claim of the Society holding inter alia that Esso Eastern Inc was in occupation of the flat in dispute under a subsisting licence as on Feb 1 1973 and thus got the protection available to a licencee under sec
15A of the Bombay Rent Act and that the said protection could not be taken away merely by the Society making a claim for eviction us 91 1 of the Act
The Society being aggrieved appealed to the Maharashtra State Co operative Appellate Court
The appellate Court took the view that leave and licence agreement confers only a personal right to occupy that right cannot be transferred nor inherited by the Hindustan Petroleum Corpn being successor in interest of Esso Eastern Inc In that view of the matter the appellate Cooperative Court held that the Petitioner Corpn
cannot be said to have taken over the right vt Esso Eastern Inc to occupy the flat under the leave and licence agreement
Accordingly it allowed the appeal filed by the Society and decreed the claim of the Society and directed the Petr
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn
to vacate the premises in question and further directed Res 2 Ms Malkani to herself occupy the flat
The Petitioner thereupon filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the judgment PG NO 46 and order passed by the Maharashtra State Co operative Appellate Court
The said Writ Petition was withdrawn to this Court under Article 139A of the Constitution
In the Writ Petition 3 questions have been raised viz 1 Whether the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd being a Successor in interest of the Esso Eastern Inc the licensee was entitled to the protection of section 15A of the Bombay Rents Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 Maharashtra Act 17 of 1973 having regard to the fact that Esso Eastern Inc was in occupation of the flat in dispute under a subsisting licence as existing on 1st February 1973 2 Whether the Maharashtra State Co operative Appellate Court was justified in holding that the licence being purely personal and upon acquisition of the Esso Eastern Inc by the Central Government under the Esso Acquisition of Undertakings in India Act 1974 the agreement for leave and licence as existing on the appointed day ie D 13th March 1974 under section 2a of that Act stood extinguished and therefrom the right acquired by Esso Eastern Inc under section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act of being a protected tenant in relation to the flat in question could not be transferred to or be vested in the Central Government under section 3 of the Acquisition Act
Further was it also justified in holding that although the Esso Eastern Inc was deemed to be a tenant of the disputed flat under section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act the Central Government could not be deemed to have become the tenant thereof under Sub section
1 of section 5 of the Acquisition Act merely because prior to the enactment of section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act the premises were held by Esso Eastern Inc on an agreement of leave and licence 3 Whether a claim for ejectment of an occupant of a flat in a cooperative housing society having been let into possession of the premises under an agreement for leave and licence executed between it and a member of the Society by virtue of its employer having became a nominee member thereof is a dispute touching the business of the Society within the meaning of section 911 of the Act Allowing the Petition which stood transferred from the High Court to this Court the Court HELD Petitioner No I Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd is clearly protected under section 15A of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947
47G 1 48A PG NO 47 That Act came into force on March 15 1974 and in the meanwhile the licencee Esso Eastern Inc had already acquired the status of deemed tenant under section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act as admittedly there was a subsisting licence as on 1st February 1973
The appellate Court has also failed to appreciate that the name of the Esso Standard Refining Co of India Ltd was changed to Esso Eastern Inc by a certificate of Amendment dated December 22 1970 vide a Resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the Corporation on 15th December 1970
58D E The appellate Court was clearly in error in not appreciating that under section 3 of the Acquisition Act the right title and interest of Esso Eastern Inc in relation to its undertakings in India shall stand transferred to and shall vest in the Central Government as from the appointed day i e as from 13th March 1974
Under Sub section
1 of section 5 thereof the Central Government became the lessee or tenant as the case may be
By sub section
2 thereof on the expiry of the term of any lease or tenancy referred to in sub section
1 lease or tenancy shall if so desired by the Central Government be renewed on the same terms and conditions on which the lease or tenancy was held by Esso immediately before the appointed day
158F 59A ON Bhatnagar vs Smt
Rukibai Narsingdas  Ors
   referred to