Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"5. Saving of contracts, etc.--
Subject to the other provisions contained in this Order and without prejudice to the powers conferred on Central Government under Section 15 of the Caltex (Acquisition of Shares of Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited) and of the Undertakings in India of Caltex (India) Limited) Act, 1977, all contracts, deeds, bonds, agreements and other instruments of whatever nature to which CORIL is a party subsisting or having effect immediately before the appointed day, shall, as from that day, be of as full force and effect against, or in favour of. HPCL, as the case may be, and may be enforced as fully and effectually as if, instead of CORIL, HPCL has been a party thereto or as if they had been executed in favour of HPCL."

The said H PCL expressed its desire exercising its option for renewal of the lease for a further period of 10 years by requesting through a letter date 23rd of May, 1979, which has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ application. The said HPCL purported to have exercised its power under Clause 3(g) of the original lease agreement between M/s. Kalinga Automobiles and Caltex (India) Limited. In reply to the aforesaid letter M/s. Kalinga Automobiles indicated that monthly rental should be revised in view of the escalation of the Government rate with regard to the rental for the land and it was also indicated that since the Corporation has appointed a dealer and M/s. Kalinga Automobiles was in business in automobiles, the Corporation may appoint them as dealer. Be that as it may, notwithstanding the HPCL exercising its option for renewal for a further period of 10 years, by intimating M/s. Kalinga Automobiles vide letter dated 23-5-1979 under Annexure-3 and M/s. Kalinga Automobiles having some reservations about the same as per Annexure-4, no lease deed was executed in accordance with Clause 3(g) of the original lease agreement, nor any such deed was registered. But, however, the Corporation continued to occupy the premises in question and M/s. Kalinga Automobiles as well as its successor-in-interest, the present petitioner, continued to receive the monthly rent. On 13th of September, 1989, HPCL intimated M/s. Kalinga Automobiles Ltd. that they are exercising the further right to renew the lease for a period of 20 years commencing from 1-10-1989 in accordance with Sections 5 and 7(3) of the Act. The said letter has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ application. The present petitioner who has acquired the rights of M/s. Kalinga Automobiles gave a reply on 17-10-1989, annexed as Annexure-6, intimating that there has been no execution and registration of any lease deed in favour of the Corporation in accordance with Clause 3(g) of the agreement subsequent to the expiry of 10 years' period which expired on 30-9-1979 and, therefore, the question of exercising any further right of renewal under Sections 5 and 7(3) of the Act does not arise. The petitioner accordingly requested the Corporation to handover the premises. The disputed premises in the meantime has been mutated in the name of the petitioner by the State of Orissa, the owner of the property, in view of the relinquishment of the rights of the other partners of the firm. Notwithstanding the request of the petitioner, the Corporation having insisted on a further term of renewal, the petitioner has approached this Court, for the following reliefs :--

3. In course of hearing, we had called upon the petitioner's counsel to produce the original lease deed executed by the State of Orissa in favour of M/s. Kalinga Automobiles to find out the real purpose for which the lease had been granted and in accordance with the same, a copy of the lease deed has been produced before us by Mr. Patnaik for the petitioner.

4. From the averments made and materials produced, the following admitted facts emerge. The State of Orissa granted lease in favour of a partnership firm called M/s, Kalinga Automobiles in the year 1964 under the lease deed dated 10th of August, 1964 in respect of the disputed premises for industrial and commercial purposes, mainly for automobile shop room and service station. On a portion of the leasehold, the lessee M/s. Kalinga Automobiles had constructed a structure for running a pertol pump, but instead of itself running the pump had sublet the disputed premises on 1-9-1970 to Caltex (India) Limited for a period of ten years commencing from 1-10-1969 and executed and registered the lease deed for that purpose and said Caltex (India) Limited appointed an agent to run the petrol pump. The tenure of the lease expired on 30-9-1979. Prior to the said expiry, by virtue of the Ordinance promulgated in 1976, the Central Government issued notification under Section 9(1) of the Ordinance vesting the rights of the Caltex (India) Limited with Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited. Under the notification issued by the Central Government under Section 9(1) of the Ordinance, the right, title and interest of Caltex (India) Limited, stood vested with a Government Company called Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited. Thereafter by virtue of the Act, the shares of Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited were acquired by the Government of India and with effect from the appointed day, i.e. 30th of December, 1976, the right, title and interest of Caltex (India) Limited in relation to its Undertakings stood transferred to and vested in the Government Company called the Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited (CORIL). Subsequently, by virtue of the Amalgamation Order passed by the Company Law Board, the CORIL stood amalgamated with the HPCL and thus HPCL became the successor-in-interest of the original lessee, namely Caltex (India) Limited. Even though the lease expired since 30-9-1979, but there has been no execution of a fresh lease deed and yet HPCL continues to be in possession of the premises. The original partners of the partnership firm having relinquished their interest in favour of the petitioner who is the widow of one of the partners, the petitioner has been recognised as the lessee in respect of the leasehold by the grantor, the State of Orissa and she has been mutated accordingly.

10. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the Act having authorised only the Central Government to express its desire, HPCL was entitled to exercise that right? Mr. Patnaik for the petitioner places reliance on a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation limited, State of Orissa, (1990) 69 Cut LT 839, wheiein this Court held that the expression "if so desired by the Central Government" is oi great significance and Sub-section (2) of Section 5 cannot have any application when Central Government has not expressed the desire for renewal. No doubt, the aforesaid decision supports the contention of Mr. Patnaik, the learned counsel for the petitioner, but HPCL by virtue of legislative enactment and by virtue of orders of the Company Law Board having acquired all the rights, liabilities and assets of the former Company and further those rights which were with the Central Government having vested with HPCL, HPCL could also express its "desire" for renewal. The power under Section 5(2) and 7(3) of the Act could thus be exercised by HPCL and Mr. Patnaik's contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.