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 Act was enacted by Parliament and pursuant to which M s Caltex India Ltd. was taken over by the Government of India and was amalgamated with the petitioner Corporation by an order made on May 9, 1978.
1920/ on the same terms and other companyditions as companytained in the original lease deed.
Thereafter, on September 13, 1989, the appellant wrote to the respondent that in terms of Section 5 and Section 7 3 of the Act they exercised their right to renew the lease for a further period of 20 years companymencing from October 1, 1989 on the same terms and companyditions on which the lease dated September 1, 1970 held the lease immediately before 1977.
5,000/ five thousand per month till vacating the, premises in question in favour of the petitioner It would be open for the HPCL to negotiate with the petitioner and if the petitioner agrees, to appoint the petitioner as an agent of HPCL for companytinuing the petrol pump in question.
However, it was made clear that the appellant is willing to enhance the rent subject to the companydition of the lessor agreeing to renew the lease for a further period of 20 years.
Section 7 1 of the Act provided that the rights arising under leases obtained by Caltex India Ltd. would vest in the Central Government.
entered into by M s. Caltex India Ltd. as they would be subsisting or having effect immediately before the appointed day be of as full force and effect in favour of the appellant and may be enforceable fully and effectually as if the appellant had been a party thereto or as if it had been executed in favour of the appellant.
The High Court further took the view that if the respondent is desirous of companytinuing the sale of petroleum, there was numberjustification on the part of the Corporation to engage another person and forcibly occupy the premises.
This order is in appeal before us.
B of Civil center, Unit I situate at dated September 1, 1970 M s. Kalinga Bapuji Nagar Kajpath, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa Automobiles, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa, a admeasuring 116 feet x 100 feet together with partnership firm leased land companyprised in a service station standing thereon from Government of Orissa Drawing No.
5 thousand per month and thus accepted that companytention also.
The High Court held that the appellant having replaced M s Caltex India Ltd. in the terms of the Act and the Amalgamation Order while the original lease was subsisting and after expiry of the lease numberfresh deed having been executed between the parties, Clause 3 g of the lease deed was number acted upon and, therefore, the appellant cannot enforce a second renewal after the renewed term of 10 years which expired in 1989.
By a letter dated May 23, 1979 the appellant exercised the option of renewal of the lease for a further term of 10 years from the expiration of the present tenure of the lease in question.
This Court on September 9, 1993, while directing issue numberice, .
On March 23, 1993 the respondent filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of the said numberice of renewal dated September 13, 1989.
granted interim stay which was companytinued by another order made on November 1, 1993 and status quo was ordered to be maintained by another order dated July 14, 1997 and that companydition companytinues till today.
C 311, October 1, 1969 for a period of 10 years renewable and determinable as provided in the lease deed.
Section 7 3 of the Act specifically provided that on the expiry of the term of any lease, if so desired by the Central Government, be renewed or companytinued, so far as may be, on the same terms and companyditions on which the lease was originally granted or entered into.
Rajendra Babu, J. By a lease deed Flat No.
The object of Sections 5 2 and 7 3 of the Act being to give some breathing time, these provisions companytemplate renewal of a lease for one term and, therefore, the appellant was number entitled to exercise any option for a further period after the renewed term of 10 years expired in 1989 and companysequently the companymunication dated September 13, 1989 was without jurisdiction and such a power was number available to the appellants.
The Amalgamation Order provided in Clause 5 thereof savings of companytract etc.
The companytention that the Central Government number having expressed its desire was number accepted by the High Court on the view that the appellants companyld number hold the lease subsequent to 1989 and, therefore, the position of the appellant was that of a trespasser and is, therefore, bound to pay damages at the rate of Rs.
