Summarize the following court judgment. ed Case No.7 of 1987 In Transfer Petition No. 390 of 1986. Dr. Y.S Chitale	 T .U. Mehta and R.P. Kapur for the Petitioners N.N. Keshwani	 R.N. Keshwani	 Ms. Madhu Moolchandani and K. Rajendra Chodhary for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN	 J. The principal question in controversy in this petition under article 226 of the Constitution filed by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.	 a Government of India undertaking	 which has been transferred from the High Court of Bombay to this Court under article 139A Of the Constitution	 is whether the petitioner is entitled to the protection of PG NO 48 section 15A of the Bombay Rent	 Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act	 1947	 introduced by Maharashtra Act No. 17 of 1973 read with section 5 of the Esso (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act	 1974. Put very briefly	 the essential facts are these. The Esso Eastern Inc.	 a company organised and existing under the laws of the State of Belaware	 U.S.A.	 was carrying on	 in India the business of distributing and marketing petroleum products manufactured by Esso Standard Refining Company of India Ltd.	 and Lube India Ltd. and had	 for that purpose	 established places of business in India. The company had taken several fiats in the Metropolitan City of Greater Bombay and elsewhere for accommodating their employees including Flat No.35 in Block No.8 in the housing colony known as Shyam Niwas situate at Warden Road	 now called Bhulabhai Desai Road	 Bombay on leave and licence basis for a period of one year in terms of an agreement in writing dated 26th November	 1968 from Smt. Nanki M. Malkani. respondent No. 2 herein. On 4th December. 1968 respondent No 1 Shyam Co operative Housing Society Ltd. passed a Resolution admitting petitioner No. 2 T.J. Nansukhani	 and employee of the company as a nominal member of the society though he was not the licensee The company on 16th January	 1970 exercised the option of renewal of the licence for another year i.e. till 30th November 1970. On 29th November	 1971	 respondent No. 2 Smt. Nanki M. Malkani addressed a letter to the company intimating that the agreement for leave and licence was due to expire on that date and accordingly the period of the said licence was renewed	 yearly	 from time to time to time years on the expiry of each term of licence i.e. on 30th November	 1972 and 30th November	 1972 and 30th November	 1973. In the meanwhile	 the State Legislature of Maharashtra enacted Act No. 17 of 1973. The amendment Act also made consequential changes to which we shall presently refer. Undoubtedly	 the Esso Standard Inc. was in occupation of the flat in question as on 1st February	 1973 and thus acquired the status of a tenant under section 15A of the Act. On 13th March. the Esso (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act	 1974 was brought into force. As from that date. the Central Government by virtue of sub section (1) of section 5 of the Act was deemed to be the tenant of the flat in question. On 9th April. 1975	 respondent No. 2 Smt. Nanki M. Malkani sent a communication to the petitioner affirming the terms and conditions of the licence. Again	 on 24th March 1975	 she addressed a letter confirming that she had given the aforesaid flat to Esso Eastern Inc. in December 1968 on leave and licence basis and the petitoner PG NO 49 being the successor in tittle of that company had been occupying the flat as licensee on the same terms and conditions. On 11th September	 1980	 the society passed a resolution calling upon the petitioner Corporation to vacate the said premises and directing that respondent No. 2 Smt. Nanki M. Malkani should herself occupy the flat. Upon failure of the Corporation to vacate the premises	 the society on 15th September	 1980 filed an application under section 9I(I) of the Maharashtra Co operative Societies Act	 1960 before the 3rd Co operative Court	 Bombay for eviction of the petitioner and its employee. On 7th January	 1981	 petitioner No. I permitted another employee to occupy the flat. The 3rd Co operative Court	 Bombay after consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties	 by its well reasoned judgment dated 6th June	 1983 dismissed the claims of the society holding inter alia that Esso Eastern Inc. was in occupation of the flat in dispute under a subsisting licence as on 1st February	 1973 and thus got the protection available to a licensee under section I5A of the Bombay Rent Act and the said protection could not be taken away merely by the society making a claim for eviction under section 91(I) of the Act. Aggrieved	 the society went up in appeal to the Maharashtra State Co operative Appellate Court which by its judgment dated 17th March	 19X4 allowed the appeal and decreed the claim of the society requiring petitioner No. 1 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. to vacate Flat No. 35 in Block No. 8 of the society building with a further direction that respondent No. 2 Smt. Nanki M. Malkani should occupy the flat in question herself. I hereupon	 the petitioner moved the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate writ	 direction or order for quashing the impugned judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra State Co operative Appellate Court. This petition mainly raises three questions. They are [1] Whether the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited being a successor in interest of the Esso Eastern Inc. the licensee	 was entitled to the protection of section 15A of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act	 1947	 introduced by the Maharashtra Act No. 17 of 1973	 having regard to the fact that the 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 operative Appellate Court was justified in holding that a licence being purely personal. 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 i.e. 13th March	 1974 under section 2 (a) of that Act	 stood extinguished and therefore the right acquired by Esso PG NO 50 Eastern Inc. under section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act of being a protected tenant in relation to the flat in question	 could not stand transferred to	 or be vested in	 the Central Government under section 3 of the Acquisition Act. 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 (I) of section 5 of the Acquisition Act merely because prior to the enactment of section ISA of the Bombay Rent Act the premises were held by Esso Eastern Inc. on an agreement for 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 employee having become a nominal member thereof	 is a 'dispute touching the business of the society ' within the meaning of section 9 (1) of the Act. In the view that we take on the first two questions	 there is no need to answer the third which is already covered by the decision of this Court in O N. Bhatnagar vs Smt. Rukibai Narsindas & Ors. [ ; The statutory provisions bearing on these questions are set out below. The relevant provision in sub section [I] of section 91 of the Act	 prior to its amendment	 provided: "91 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force	 any dispute touching the parties to the dispute . .to the Registrar if both the parties thereto are one or other of the following: (a) a society (b) a member	 past member or a person claiming through a member . . The definition of the term 'landlord ' as contained in section 5(3) of the Bombay Rent Act was amended to include in respect of a licensee deemed to be tenant by section 15A	 the licenser who has given such licence '. The expression licensee ' as defined in sub section (4A) thereof introduced by the Amending Act	 insofar as material	 reads as follows: "(4A) 'licensee '	 in respect of any premises or any part thereof	 means the person who is in occupation of the pre PG NO 51 mises or such part	 as the case may be	 under a subsisting agreement for licence given for a licence fee or charge ' and includes any person in such occupation of any premises or part thereof in a building vesting in or leased to a cooperative housing society registered or deemed to be registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act	 1960; but does not include a paying guest	 a member of a family residing together	 a person in the service or employment of the licensor etc; . and the expressions "licence"	 "licenser" and "premises given on licence ' shall be construed accordingly. " Sub section (1) of section 15A of the Bombay Rent	 as introduced by the Maharashtra Act No. 17 of 1973 provides: '15A(1). Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or anything contrary in any other law for the time being in force	 or in any contract	 where any person is on February 1. 1973 in occupation of any premises	 or any part thereof which is not less than a room	 as a licensee he shall on that date be deemed to have become	 for the purposes of this Act	 the tenant of the landlord	 in respect of the premises or part thereof	 in his occupation. " Sec. 28(1) of the Act insofar as material reads. "28 (1). Notwithstanding anything contained in any law and notwithstanding that by reason of the amount of the claim or for any other reason	 the suit or proceeding would not	 but. for this provision be within its jurisdiction. (a) in Greater Bombay	 the Court of Small Causes Bombay	 [aa] [b] shall have jurisdiction to entertain and try any suit or proceeding between a landlord and a tenant relating to the recovery of rent or possession of any premises to which any of the provisions of this Part apply . .and to decide any application made under this Act and to deal with any claim PG NO 52 or question arising out of this Act or any of its provisions and . no other court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any such suit	 proceeding or application or to deal with such claim or question. " We must then refer to the relevant provisions of the Esso Eastern Inc. The avowed object and purpose of the Esso (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act	 1974	 as reflected in the long title is to provide for the acquisition and transfer of the right	 title and interest of Esso Eastern Inc.	 the foreign company	 in relation to its undertakings in India with a view to ensuring co ordinated distribution and utilisation of petroleum products distributed and marketed in India by Esso Eastern Inc. and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The preamble to the Act is in these terms: "Whereas Esso Eastern Inc. a foreign company	 is carrying on	 in India	 the business of distributing and marketing petroleum products manufactured by Esso Standard Refining Company of India Limited and Lube India Limited	 and has	 for that purpose	 established places of business at Bombay and other places in India; And whereas it is expedient in the public interest that the undertakings	 in India	 of Esso Eastern Inc. should he acquired in order to ensure that the ownership and control of the petroleum products distributed and marketed in India by the said company are vested in the State and thereby so distributed as best to subserve the common good;" Section 3 of the Act provides: "3. Transfer and vesting in the Central Government of the undertakings of Esso in India On the appointed day	 the right	 title and interest of Esso	 in relation to its undertakings in India	 shall stand transferred to and shall stand in	 the Central Government. The Act received the assent of the President on the 13th March	 1974 and published on that day became the appointed day	 as defined in section 2(a) of the Act. Sub section ( 1) of section 5 provides: "5. Central Government to be lessee or tenant under certain circumstances (l) Where any property is held in India by Esso under any lease or under any right of tenancy PG NO 53 the Central Government shall on and from the appointed day	 be deemed to have become the lessee or tenant	 as the case may be	 in respect of such property as if the lease or tenancy in relation to such property had been granted to the Central Government	 and thereupon all the rights under such lease or tenancy shall be deemed to have been transferred to and vested in the Central Government." Section 7(1) provides that	 notwithstanding anything contained in sections 3 4 and 6	 the Central Government may	 if it is satisfied that a Government company is willing to comply	 or has complied	 with such terms and conditions as that Government may think fit to impose direct	 by notification	 that the right	 title and interest and the liabilities of Esso in relation to any undertaking in India shall	 instead of continuing to vest in the Central Government	 vest in the Government company either on the date of the notification or on such earlier or later date (not being a date earlier than the appointed day) as may be specified in the notification. The Act makes provision that if there was any dispute with regard to what is vested in the Central Government	 the proper forum was the Central Government for taking a decision. 19 of the Act reads as under: "19. Power to remove difficulties If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act	 the Central Government may	 by order	 not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act. remove the difficulty; Provided that no such order shall be made after the expiry of a period of two years from the appointed day. " In exercise of the powers conferred by sub s.(l) of section 7 of the Act	 the Central Government	 in the Ministry of Petroleum & Chemicals issued a notification No. GSR 131(F.) dated 14th March 1974. that on being satisfied that Esso Standard Refining Company of India Limited? a Government company	 is willing to comply with the terms and India imposed by the Central Government	 hereby directs that the right	 title and interest and the liabilities of Esso Eastern Inc.	 in relation to its undertakings in l ndia	 shall	 instead of continuing to vest in the Central Government. vest	 w.e.f. the 15th day of March	 1974	 in Esso Standard Refining Company of India Limited. Indubitably. as on the appointed day i.e. 13th March	 1974 PG NO 54 under section 2(a) of the Acquisition Act	 the Esso Eastern Inc. had acquired the status of a protected tenant under section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act and the tenancy rights so acquired in relation to the flat in question stood transferred to	 and became vested in	 the Central Government. By virtue of the aforesaid notification issued under section 7(1) of the Act	 the rights of tenancy in the 13 flat in question instead of continuing to vest in the Central Government became vested in Esso Standard Refining Company of India Limited	 a Government of India undertaking	 w.e.f. 15th March	 1974. It is also necessary to mention that the Central Government held	 in the name of the President	 74% of the equity share capital of the Esso Standard Refining Company of India Limited	 which therefore became a Government company as defined by section 617 of the . On 12th July	 1974 the Company Law Board	 in exercise of the powers conferred by sub sections (1) and (2) of section 396 of the 	 read with the notification of the Government of India in the Department of Company Affairs No. GSR 443(E) dated 18th October	 1972	 made Lube India Limited a Esso Standard Refining company of India Limited (Amalgamation) Order	 1974. (3) of the said Order provided that as from the appointed day	 the undertaking of Lube India Limited shall stand transferred to	 and vest in	 Esso Standard Refining Company of India Limited. As a result of the amalgamation of the two companies	 the name of Esso Standard Refining Company of India Limited was changed to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. It is therefore evident that petition No. 1 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited	 a Government of India undertaking	 is a successor in interest of Esso Eastern Inc. which acquired the status of a deemed tenant under section ISA of the Bombay Rent Act	 which right devolved on the Central Government under section 6(1) of the Acquisition Act. Upon these facts and the statutory provisions	 the 3rd Cooperative Court rightly concluded as under: "Thus	 it is clear that there was a subsisting licence in favour of opponent No. 3 as on 1.2.73. The definition 'Licensee ' as given in Section 5(4A) of the Rent Act includes inter alia a person in occupation of premises of a co operative housing society. PG NO 55 My findings on this issue are that the opponent No. 3 has a right to the premises against opponent No. 1 as protected tenant under Section 15A of the Rent Act. " In dealing with the question	 it observed: "The Supreme Court has clearly observed that the protection given to a licensee under a valid licence as on 1.2.73 under Act 17 of the amended Rent Act is available to a licensee of any premises or any part thereof in a building vesting in or leased to a co operative housing society. This protection given to a licensee in the position mentioned above cannot be taken away merely by the society filing the case against the member and occupant for reliefs to the opponent member. The provisions of the two legislations are to be harmoniously interpreted and such harmonious interpretation is possible. In case the occupant of a premises gets protection under section 15A of the Rent Act against the member	 the society can implement the provisions of section 2( l6) of the Maharashtra Co operative Societies Act	 1960 by determining the rights of the member and admitting a new member for the premises. Hence	 my finding on the second part of the issue are that the rights of opponent No. 3 cannot be determined without determining the rights of opponent No. I i.e. Nanki M. Malkani	 a co partner member in the suit premises. " In view of these findings	 the 3rd Co operative Court held in favour of the petitioner corporation and dismissed the claim for eviction filed by the society under section 9( l) of the Act. Curiously enough	 while allowing the appeal	 the State Appellate Court has observed as follows: "One thing is clear that Hindustan Petroleum took over the rights and liabilities of Esso Standard Eastern Co. We would like to point out that leave and licence agreement confers only a personal right to occupy . that right cannot be transferred nor it can be inherited by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation by virtue of the merger of Esso Company with Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. Under these circumstances it has to be noted that as soon as the Esso PG NO 56 Standard Eastern Co. was taken over by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation	 the rights under the leave and license agreement came to an end . . it cannot be said that it (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation) also took over the rights of Esso Standard Eastern Co. to occupy the flat under the leave and licence agreement. Again it observed: " At P. 299 of the record there is a letter dated 24.3.80 written by respondent No. 1 to the personal adviser of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. In the first para of the said letter it is stated by respondent No. 1 that he has given the suit that to Esso Standard Eastern Inc. in December 1968 on leave and licence basis and that Hindustan Petroleum Corporation is the successor in title of the Esso Company and that Hindustan Petroleum Corporation is occupying the said flat: Probably in ignorance of this legal position	 the respondent No. I wrote the above mentioned letter dated 24. 3.80 to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation . Even supposing that respondent No. I intended that respondent No. 3 should continue as a licensee after Esso Standard Eastern Co. was taken over by respondent No. 3 it has to be noted that there was no separate leave and licence agreement with Hindustan Petroleum Corporation namely. respondent No. 3. Even assuming for the sake of argument that respondent No. I intended that the flat should be occupied on leave and licence basis by respondent No. 3 that leave and licence agreement was terminated by respondent No. I by the above mentioned letter. " Further	 it observed: "However there is absolutely no evidence to show the licence was renewed	 at any time. The evidence of the witness examined on behalf of respondent No. 2 clearly shows that there was no renewal of the leave and licence agreement respondent No. 3 the leave and licence agreement automatically came to an end . .under these circumstances we feel that the rights that were given under PG NO 57 the leave and licence agreement were not available to respondent No. 3" Dr. Y.S. Chitale	 learned counsel appearing for the petitioners rightly contends that the findings reached by the Appellate Court are manifestly erroneous and have caused a grave miscarriage of justice. The finding that there was no subsisting licence existing as on 1st February	 1973 to attract the provisions of section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act in the case of the petitioner Corporation is vitiated by its failure to give effect to the admission contained in the letter dated 24th March	 1980 written by respondent No. 2	 Smt. Nanki M. Malkani which is to the effect: "I had given the above flat to the then Esso Standard Inc. in December 1968 on leave and 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 predecessors in title are reputed organisation I had given the flat for your officers use in the expectation that you will return the flat. when l require it for my own use. " Besides this letter	 the learned counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to a sheaf of letters exchanged between respondent No. 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 24th March	 1980 which must be necessary implication	 give rise to the inference as to the existence of such a licence between its predecessor Esso Eastern Inc. as on 1st February	 1973 which conferred on it the status of a protected tenant under section 15A of the Act. Indeed	 the correspondence shows that it was at the behest of respondent No. 2 that every time on the expiry of a term of licence it came to be renewed from year to year till section 15A 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 I5A of the Bombay Rent Act. For instance	 by letter dated 9th April	 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 15th November	 1976	 she wrote to the Corporation forwarding the original bill of the society in support of her demand for payment of enhanced taxes and PG NO 58 charges. In view of these admissions made in these letters and more particularly in the letter dated 29th November	 1971 to Esso Eastern Inc. which reads as under: "As the present agreement of leave and licence in regard to above flat is due to expire on 30th November	 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 licensee under section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act as on 1st February, 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 15th March, 1974 and in the meanwhile, the licensee Esso Eastern Inc. had already acquired the status of deemed tenant under section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act admittedly, there was a subsisting licence as on 1st February, 1973. The Appellate Court has also failed to appreciate that the name of Esso Eastern Inc. was changed to Esso Eastern Inc. by a Certificate of Amendment dated/22nd December, 1970 vide a Resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the Corporation on 15th December, 1970. In view of all this, the finding of the Appellate Court that the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. was entitled to the protection of section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act clearly borders on traversity and can hardly be swtained. The Appellate Court was clearly in error in not appreciating that section by 4. 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. Under sub section (I) 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 or tenancy refereed to in sub section (1), such lease or tenancy shall, if PG NO 59 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. 15th March, 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] & (2) of the , the undertaking of Lube lndia Ltd. vested in Esso Standard Refining Company of India Ltd. and immediately upon such transfer, the name of Esso Standard Refining Company of lndia Ltd., stood changed to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. In the premises, petitioner No. 1 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. is clearly protected under section 15A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act. 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 Cooperative 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 's case and we reiterate the principles laid down therein. In the result, the petition under article 226 of the Constitution succeeds and is allowed. I he judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra State Co operative Appellate Court dated June 6, 1983 allowing the claim of respondent No. 1 Shyam Co operative Housing Society for eviction of the petitioners as also the proceedings initiated by it under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co operative Societies Act. 1960 are quashed. Y. Lal Petition allowed. 
6397	ition Civil Nos. 999 of 1988 and 1043 of 1989. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). R.K. Jain, Rakesh K. Khanna, Ms. Sangeeta Mandal, Surya Kant and R.P. Singh, (NP) for the Petitioners. 106 section Hegde, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. A. Subha shini, Ms. Uma Jain and R.K. Mehta for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA, J. Both these are applications under article 32 of the Constitution, the first one by three peti tioners and the second by one. The respondent All India Institute of Medical Sciences has been set up under a Cen tral Act of that name of 1956. Section 13 of the Act pro vides the objects of the Institute which are: (a) to develop patterns of teaching in udergraduate and post graduate medical education in all its branches so as to demonstrate a high standard of medical education to all medical colleges and other allied institutions in India; (b) to bring together in one place educational facilities of the highest order for the training of personnel in all important branches of health activity; and (c) to attain self suffi ciency in post graduate medical education. " Section 14 of the Act lays down the functions of the Institute and	 inter alia provides in cls. (a) and (b): "14. With a view to the promotion of the objects specified under section 13	 the Institute may (a) provide for undergraduate and post graduate teaching in the science of modern medicine and other allied sciences including physical and biological sciences; (b) provide facilities for research in the various branches of such sciences"; Petitioners have alleged that ever since its inception the Institute has taken up various research projects and has made valuable contribution to the updating of medical knowl edge and building up coordinated research activity. For the purposes of carrying out such research programme in conjunc tion with the world Health Organisation	 the Indian Council of Medical Research and other celebrated organisations both national and international research projects are undertaken by the Institute by employing researchers. For the carrying out of the assignments of research projects the petitioners were employed more than a decade ago and their assertion to the effect that 107 they have continuously worked for more than 10 15 years has not been disputed. Petitioners have also asserted that they have worked to the satisfaction of the authorities and the guides and there is no denial of that fact too. It is the case of the petitioners that by working for such a long period continuously and in different projects under differ ent guides	 they have picked up the requisite expertise which would be useful in carrying out any normal research project. Petitioners allege that there is work in the hands of the Institute but petitioners ' employment excepting in the case of Dr. Jasbir Kaur Dhawan (Kochhar)	 petitioner No. 3 in the first writ petition	 as Researchers have now been terminated. They contend that having worked for a long period in the Institute they have reached an age in life where they are no more entitled to enter into Government service or any other suitable public employment. While they have gathered the requisite expertise and are useful for the purpose of assisting research programme with the deprivation of their employment and faced with the ban of over age for any public employment they are deprived of the source of sustenance and the nation is deprived of their useful serv ice. The Institute	 the Union of India in the Ministry of Health and the Indian Council of Medical Research have responded to the notice on the petition. A common affidavit has been filed purporting to be on behalf of the respondents by the Director of the Institute. It has been stated therein that the Institute is assigned projects and the Project Guides pick up Researchers depending upon suitability. The employment is project wise and once the project is complete	 the job comes to an end. The fact that there has been con tinuous engagement available to the petitioners does not change the nature of employment and the fortuitous circum stance of continuity does not confer any right in the peti tioners to be continued in employment even when the Insti tute does not have any research project in hand. It has been specifically pleaded that the services of the petitioners are not required any longer in the absence of any research project with the Institute where their services would be suitable. The other two respondents being the Union of India and the Indian Council of Medical Research have not filed any counter affidavit of their own. The Institute and the Union of India appeared through separate Advocates at the time of hearing. Mr. Hegde	 learned Additional Solicitor General indicat ed his sympathy to the cause of the petitioners and took an adjournment from the Court to explore the possibility of offering a solution to the 108 problem and returned to tell us that though there was a human problem	 no solution could be worked out. The Institute set up by statute is intended to carry on research in a continuous way to improve the level of medical knowledge. Under the Act the Institute is an autonomous body though the Chairman thereof is no other than the Union Minister of Health. It is true that the Institute is en trusted from time to time with research projects by the World Health Organisation	 the Indian Council of Medical Research and other government and semi government bodies. It is appropriate that a scheme should be evolved by the Insti tute in coordination with the Health Ministry and the Indian 2Council of Medical Research so that a team of researchers is built up to meet the general requirements of research. It is quite possible that certain projects would require spe cialised hands and on such occasions a special team could be set up on casual basis by drawing the competent hands from different institutions for a period but to keep up the tempo of research if a team of researchers is built up	 it would be convenient for the Institute for purposes of discipline and control as also for efficiency. The Health Ministry must also sponsor continuous research projects in the field of medicine and health and for such purpose several projects should be listed out from time to time and entrusted to the respondent Institute as also a similar Institute at Chandi garh and to institutes as and when set up elsewhere. This would assist in updating relevant medical information and knowledge	 apart from building up a scientific tone and temper for general circulation. We commend that the Insti tute initiates seriously action in this regard without delay and we suggest that the Ministry of Health and the Indian Council of Medical Research collaborate with the Institute to work out the same. Respondent no.3 Indian Council of Medical Research has not chosen to appear separately before us inspite of service of notice. Since we have been told that the respondent Institute has immediately no scope to employ the petitioners excepting the one that we have named above	 we direct that the remaining three petitioners in these two petitions should be provided employment either as Researchers or in any suitable alternative employment until their inclusion in a team of researchers is considered. The Indian Council of Medical Research shall take appropriate steps to offer adequate employment to the three petitioners within two months hence. If the question of funding becomes necessary	 we direct the Ministry of Health to cooperate and place adequate funds at the disposal of the Indian Council of Medical Research. 109 These two petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid directions and without any order for costs	 with liberty to the petitioners to apply	 with the fond hope that all con cerned will appreciate the spirit of the order and implement the direction in the proper way as stipulated. N.P.V. Petitions disposed of.

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 T.J. 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 91(1) 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 u/s 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 i.e. D 13th March	 1974 under section 2(a) 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 91(1) 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] O.N. Bhatnagar vs Smt. Rukibai Narsingdas & Ors. 	 ; 	 referred to.