The evidence of the witness examined on behalf of respondent No.
Upon failure of the Corporation to vacate the premises, the society on 15th September, 1980 filed an application under s. 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.
In the meanwhile, the State Legislature of Maharashtra enacted Act No.
2 clearly shows that there was numberrenewal of the leave and licence agreement respondent No.
The finding that there was numbersubsisting licence existing as on 1st February, 1973 to attract the provisions of s. 15A of the Bombay Rent Act in the case of the petitioner Corporation is vitiated by its failure to give effect to the admission companytained in the letter dated 24th March, 1980 written by respondent No.
Nanki M. Malkani addressed a letter to the companypany 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.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN, J. The principal question in companytroversy in this petition under Art.
Nanki M. Malkani sent a companymunication to the petitioner affirming the terms and companyditions of the licence.
2 herein.
I hereupon, the petitioner moved the High Court under Art.
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.
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 Art.
respondent No.
On 29th November, 1971, respondent No.
15th March, 1974.
On 12th July, 1974 the Company Law Board, in exercise of the powers companyferred by sub ss.
2 that every time on the expiry of a term of licence it came to be renewed from year to year till s. 15A of the Bombay Rent Act was brought into force.
I permitted another employee to occupy the flat.
1968 respondent No 1 Shyam Co operative Housing Society Ltd. passed a Resolution admitting petitioner No.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Transferred Case No.7 of 1987 In Transfer Petition No.
By virtue of the aforesaid numberification issued under s. 7 1 of the Act, the rights of tenancy in the 13 flat in question instead of companytinuing to vest in the Central Government became vested in Esso Standard Refining Company of India Limited, a Government of India undertaking, w.e.f.
3 that leave and licence agreement was terminated by respondent No.
1 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. to vacate Flat No.
139A Of the Constitution, is whether the petitioner is entitled to the protection of PG NO 48 s. 15A of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, introduced by Maharashtra Act No.
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.
2, Smt.
I intended that the flat should be occupied on leave and licence basis by respondent No.
You as a successor in title of that companypany have been occupying the flat as licensee on the same terms and companyditions.
1 and 2 of s. 396 of the Companies Act, 1956, read with the numberification of the Government of India in the Department of Company Affairs No.
Besides this letter, the learned companynsel for the petitioners drew our attention to a sheaf of letters exchanged between respondent No.
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.
On 4th December.
On 9th April.
the Central Government by virtue of sub s. 1 of s. 5 of the Act was deemed to be the tenant of the flat in question.
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.
I by the above mentioned letter.
The Esso Eastern Inc., a companypany 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.
On 11th September, 1980, the society passed a resolution calling upon the petitioner Corporation to vacate the said premises and directing that respondent No.
On 7th January, 1981, petitioner No.
390 of 1986.
17 of 1973 read with s. 5 of the Esso Acquisition of Undertakings in India Act, 1974.
Nanki M. Malkani.
The companypany 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 companyony known as Shyam Niwas situate at Warden Road, number 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.
As from that date.
2 Smt.
the 15th day of March, 1974, in Esso Standard Refining Company of India Limited.
GSR 443 E dated 18th October, 1972, made Lube India Limited a Esso Standard Refining companypany of India Limited Amalgamation Order, 1974.
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.
Indeed, the companyrespondence shows that it was at the behest of respondent No.
The 3rd Co operative Court, Bombay after companysideration 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 s. I5A of the Bombay Rent Act and the said protection companyld number be taken away merely by the society making a claim for eviction under s. 91 I of the Act.
Put very briefly, the essential facts are these.
Thereafter, the predecessor in interest of the petitioner, companyporation was deemed to be her tenant under s. I5A of the Bombay Rent Act.
as on the appointed day i.e. 13th March, 1974 PG NO 54 under s. 2 a of the Acquisition Act, the Esso Eastern Inc. had acquired the status of a protected tenant under s. 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.
17 of 1973.
35 in Block No.
As a result of the amalgamation of the two companypanies, the name of Esso Standard Refining Company of India Limited was changed to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited.
Further, it observed However there is absolutely numberevidence to show the licence was renewed, at any time.
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.
1975, respondent No.
vest, w.e.f.
On 13th March.
Again, on 24th March 1975, she addressed a letter companyfirming 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 companypany had been occupying the flat as licensee on the same terms and companyditions.
Furthermore, by reason of Lube India and Esso Standard Refining Company of India Ltd. Amalgamation Order, 1974 made by the Company Law Board under s. 396 1 2 of the Companies Act, 1956, 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.
2 Smt.
the Esso Acquisition of Undertakings in India Act, 1974 was brought into force.
2 T.J. Nansukhani, and employee of the companypany as a numberinal member of the society though he was number the licensee The companypany on 16th January, 1970 exercised the option of renewal of the licence for another year i.e. till 30th November 1970.
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 number available to respondent No.
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.
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.
Indubitably.
2 Smt.
3 Dr. Y.S. Chitale, learned companynsel appearing for the petitioners rightly companytends that the findings reached by the Appellate Court are manifestly erroneous and have caused a grave miscarriage of justice.
when l require it for my own use.
By a numberification 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 companypany, w.e.f.
2 Smt.
Nanki M. Malkani should occupy the flat in question herself.
Nanki M. Malkani should herself occupy the flat.
