Case: Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. &amp; Anr Vs. Shyam Co Operative Housing Society &amp; Ors

1980 written by respondent 2, Smt. Nanki M. Malkani which is to the effectI had given the above flat to the then Esso Standard Inc. in December 1968 on leave licence basis. You as a successor-in-title of that company have been occupying the flat as licensee on the same terms and conditions. As you and your predecessor-in-title are reputed organisation I had given the flat for your officers use in the expectation that you will return the flat, when I require it for my own use. Besides this letter, the learned counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to a sheaf of letter exchanged between respondent 2 Smt. Nanki M. Malkani and the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. showing that she accepted that there was subsisting agreement of leave and licence as late as March 24, 1980 which must by necessary implication, give rise to the inference as to the existence of such a licence between its predecessor Esso Eastern Inc. as on February 1, 1973 which conferred on it the status of a protected tenant under Section 15-A of the Act. Indeed, the correspondence shows that it was at the behest of respondent 2 that every time on the expiry of a term of licence it came to be renewed from year to year till Section 15-A of the Bombay Rent Act was brought into force. Thereafter, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner-corporation was deemed to be her tenant under Section 15-A of the Bombay Rent Act. For instance, by letter dated April 9, 1975 she wrote to the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. that the above flat had been in its possession since December 1, 1968. Again, by letter dated November 15, 1976, she wrote to the corporation forwarding the original bill of the society in support of her demand for payment of enhanced taxes and charges. In view of these admission made in there letters and more particularly in the letter dated November 29, 1971 to Esso Eastern Inc. which reads as underAs the present agreement of leave and licence in regard to above flat is due to expire on November 30, 1973 that is two years from hence, you would like me to give you an undertaking of renewal of this agreement to justify the expenditure being incurred by you now. the findings of the appellate court are clearly erroneous. On the other hand, it stands proved that Esso Eastern Inc. had acquired the status of deemed tenant or protected license under Section 15-A of the Bombay Rent Act as on February 1, 1973. The findings of the appellate court to the contrary are therefore clearly erroneous. We are unable to sustain the view taken by the appellate court in not giving effect to sub-section (1) of Section 5 which vested the tenancy rights in relation to the flat in question on the Central Government as from appointed day. While it is true that a licence being personal is not capable of being transferred; there was no warrant for the assumption by the appellate court that the licence stood extinguished with the acquisition of the right, title and interest of Esso Eastern Inc. under Section 3 of the Acquisition Act. That Act came into force on March 15, 1974 and in the meanwhile, the licensee Esso Eastern Inc. had already acquired the status of deemed tenant under Section 15-A of the Bombay Rent Act as admittedly, there was a subsisting licence as on February 1, 1973. The appellate court has also failed to appreciate that the name of Esso Eastern Inc. was changed to Esso Eastern Inc. (sic) by a Certificate of Amendment dated December 22, 1970 vide a resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the corporation on December 15, 1970. In view of all this, the finding of the appellate court that the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. was (sic not) entitled to the protection of Section 15-A of the Bombay Rent Act clearly borders on travesty and can hardly be sustained. 13. The appellate court was clearly in error in not appreciating that by 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 March 13, 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), such 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. By a notification issued on the next date, the right, title and interest of the Central Government became vested in Esso Standard Refining Company of India Ltd., a government company, w.e.f. March 15, 1974. Furthermore, by reason of Lube India and Esso Standard Refining Company of India Ltd. Amalgamation Order, 1974 made by the Company Law Board under Section 396(1) and (2) of the Companies Act, 1956 the undertaking of Lube India Ltd. vested in Esso Standard Refining Company of India Ltd. and immediately upon such transfer the name of Esso Standard Refining Company of India Ltd. Stood change to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 14. In the premises, petitioner 1 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. is clearly protected under Section 15-A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. In that view of the matter, we do not think it necessary to deal with the contention as regards the applicability of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. All aspects arising out of the submissions as to the jurisdiction of the Registrar under Section 91(1) of the Act have already been considered by this Court on O. N. Bhatnagar case and we reiterate the principles laid down therein.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]the findings of the appellate court are clearly erroneous. On the other hand, it stands proved that Esso Eastern Inc. had acquired the status of deemed tenant or protected license under Sectionof the Bombay Rent Act as on February 1, 1973. The findings of the appellate court to the contrary are therefore clearly erroneous. We are unable to sustain the view taken by the appellate court in not giving effect to(1) of Section 5 which vested the tenancy rights in relation to the flat in question on the Central Government as from appointed day. While it is true that a licence being personal is not capable of being transferred; there was no warrant for the assumption by the appellate court that the licence stood extinguished with the acquisition of the right, title and interest of Esso Eastern Inc. under Section 3 of the Acquisition Act. That Act came into force on March 15, 1974 and in the meanwhile, the licensee Esso Eastern Inc. had already acquired the status of deemed tenant under Sectionof the Bombay Rent Act as admittedly, there was a subsisting licence as on February 1, 1973. The appellate court has also failed to appreciate that the name of Esso Eastern Inc. was changed to Esso Eastern Inc. (sic) by a Certificate of Amendment dated December 22, 1970 vide a resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the corporation on December 15, 1970. In view of all this, the finding of the appellate court that the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. was (sic not) entitled to the protection of Sectionof the Bombay Rent Act clearly borders on travesty and can hardly beThe appellate court was clearly in error in not appreciating that by 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 March 13, 1974. Under(1) of Section 5 thereof, the Central Government became the lessee or tenant, as the case may be. By(2) thereof, on the expiry of the term of any lease or tenancy referred to in(1), such 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. By a notification issued on the next date, the right, title and interest of the Central Government became vested in Esso Standard Refining Company of India Ltd., a government company, w.e.f. March 15, 1974. Furthermore, by reason of Lube India and Esso Standard Refining Company of India Ltd. Amalgamation Order, 1974 made by the Company Law Board under Section 396(1) and (2) of the Companies Act, 1956 the undertaking of Lube India Ltd. vested in Esso Standard Refining Company of India Ltd. and immediately upon such transfer the name of Esso Standard Refining Company of India Ltd. Stood change to Hindustan Petroleum CorporationIn the premises, petitioner 1 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. is clearly protected under Sectionof the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. In that view of the matter, we do not think it necessary to deal with the contention as regards the applicability of Section 91 of the MaharashtraSocieties Act, 1960. All aspects arising out of the submissions as to the jurisdiction of the Registrar under Section 91(1) of the Act have already been considered by this Court on O. N. Bhatnagar case and we reiterate the principles laid down therein