Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The Parliament, in furtherance of the directive principles enshrined in Article 39 (b) of the Constitution of India, enacted the Esso (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1974, the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1976 and the Caltex (Acquisition of Shares of Caltex Oil Refining (India) Ltd. and of the Undertakings in India of Caltex (India) Ltd.) Act, 1977, hereinafter referred to as the Esso Acquisition Act", "the Burmah Shell Acquisition Act", 'The Caltex Acquisition Act", respectively. The main object underlying each of these Acts is to acquire the right, title and interest of the three major oil companies carrying on in India the business of distributing and marketing petroleum products with a view to subserve the common good. As per some of the provisions which are common to each of these Acts, the right, title and interest of each of the oil companies in relation to its undertaking in India stood transferred and vested in the Central Government. Section 5 of the Esso Acquisition Act deals with leases and right of tenancies of the Esso with third parties in respect of the properties existing on the appointed day, and lays down that they shall be deemed to have been transferred and vested in the Central Government. Section 5 (2) of the Esso Acquisition Act provides that on the expiry of the term of. any. lease or tenancy, referred to in Sub-section (I) 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. In the Burmah Shell Acquisition Act also we find Section 5 in the same language and to the same effect. In the Caltex Acquisition Act Section 7 deals with this aspect, and Section 7 (3) lays down that on the expiry of the term of any lease, tenancy or arrangement referred to in Sub-section (I) or Sub-section (2), such lease or tenancy or arrangement shall, if so desired by the Central Government, be renewed or continued, so far as may be, on the same terms and conditions on which the lease or tenancy or argument was originally granted or entered into. After the enactments of these three Acts, admittedly the entire undertakings of these three oil companies got vested in the Central Government, which by certain orders, look over and created two major oil corpora-lions, viz.. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation and Bharat Petroleum Corporation. The undertakings of the Esso Company and the Caltax Oil Company which were vested in the Central Government were merged into a single Corporation, viz., Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. The Burmah Shell Company was similarly incorporated by the Government as Bharat Petroleum Corporation.

The preambles to the Esso Acquisition Act and the Burmah Shell Acquisition Act are in the same words and there is no difference. The preamble under the Esso Acquisition Act reads thus:--

"An Act to provide for the acquisition and transfer of the right, title and interest of Esso Eastern Inc. in relation to its undertakings in India with a view to ensuring coordinated distribution and utilisation of petroleum products distributed and marketed in India by Esso Eastern [nc. and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

22. We, therefore, observe that this judgment of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh is directly on the point. W. P. No. 2332 of 1978

23. In this Writ petition the facts are slightly different and the main contention is that the base in question expired before the appointed day and therefore the petitioner cannot be compelled to renew the lease under Section 5 (2) of the Esso Acquisition Act.

24. To appreciate this contention it is necessary to note some more facts. The petitioner is the owner of premises bearing CIB Plot No. 88 situated at Pheel-Khana in Hyderabad, admeasuring 371 square yards. His father leased out the said plot to Standard Vacuum Oil Company under a lease deed D/- 8-4-1958 for a period of ten years, on a monthly rent of Rs. 125/-. There was a clause in (he lease-deed providing for renewal of the lease for a further period of ten years by the landlord at the request of the tenant, but at an increased monthly rent of Rs. 150/-. During the subsistence of the lease, the petitioner's father died in 1961 and the petitioner became the owner and has been the lessor, [n 1963 the Standard Vacuum Oil Company was converted into Esso Standard Eastern Incorporation and the lease however continued and the same expired on 31-12-1967. The Esso Company desired a renewal but the petitioner was not willing. There was protracted correspondence and the advocate for the lessee-company persuaded the petitioner by his letter dated 31-5-1969 to accept the renewal of the lease for a further period of ten years and it was agreed that the clause for further renewal should be deleted. The petitioner however gave a reply dated 9-6-1969 through his advocate stating that there should be a further clause that the petroleum company would deliver vacant possession of the site after the expiry of the term. The lessee agreed to the same, but the formalities were not complied with and the lease was not renewed. While matters stood thus, the Esso Acquisition Act was passed and it came into force on 14-3-1974. In the year 1976 the Esso Oil Company became a Corporation under the style of 'Hindustan Petroleum Corporation' and has been carrying on business activity. The petitioner however got a notice issued through his advocate stating that the 2nd respondent should vacate the premises by 31-12-1977 as agreed upon in the correspondence. The 2nd respondent, however, purporting to exercise its option under Section 5 (2) of the Esso Acquisition Act. issued a notice that the petitioner should renew the lease for a further period of ten years commencing from January, 1978. Under these circumstances the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

26. Section 3 of the Esso Acquisition Act lays down that 'on the appointed day, the right, title and interest of Esso shall stand transferred to and shall vest in the Central Government. Section 4, as already mentioned, enumerates the effect of such vesting and makes it clear that all rights and interests arising out of any property in the possession or in the control of the Esso, in relation to its undertakings in India, shall also be deemed to include in the undertakings thus transferred. Section 5, which has already been extracted, shows that the Central Government shall on and from the appointed day be deemed to have become the lessee or tenant in respect of any lease or under any right of tenancy held by Esso on the appointed day. Therefore, the question that remains to be seen is whether the Esso company has the right of tenancy on the appointed day. Though the original lease expired on 31-12-1967, no fresh lease was executed. The 2nd respondent however continued as a tenant and the rents were duly received by the petitioner from the 2nd respondent. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that tenant continued. In Maneklal Mansukhbhai v. Hormusji Jamshedji Ginwalla & Sons, , their Lordships held that where the terms of a lease agreed to be granted are contained in the correspondence, the same can be looked into for finding whether there was acceptance in writing under which the contract to transfer the land was effected. It is further held: (at P. 4) 'The High Court was in error when it held that the correspondence summarised in Ex. 181 could not be treated as evidence of the contract and that its terms could not be reasonably deduced from this document. It is no doubt true that Ex. 181 is merely secondary evidence of the agreement of lease but it is equally true that it is very reliable piece of secondary evidence coming as it does from Government records. It furnishes proof of the fact that there was an acceptance in writing under which the contract to transfer the survey numbers in suit by way of lease was effected by the Talukdari Settlement Officer in favour of Manilal Maganlal." Their Lordships also observed: