- (1.) We have heard both the learned counsel at length.
(2.) We are clearly of the opinion that the judgment under appeal cannot be supported in law. For arriving at this decision, a few facts are required to be stated.
(3.) On 1/11/1954, the property forming the subject-matter of Civil was leased in favour of Caltex (India) Limited (a foreign company). On 19-10- 1976, the landlord filed a suit for ejectment against the said foreign company. On 30/12/1976, Ordinance No. 15 of 1976 came to be promulgated the Caltex [acquisition of Shares of Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited and of the Undertakings in India of Caltex (India) Limited] Ordinance, 1976. This Ordinance came to be replaced by Act 17 of 1977 on identical provisions. That need not concern us very much. However, what is important to notice is clause 7 of the said Ordinance is as under : "7.(1 Every right or interest in respect of any property in India (including a right under any lease or under any right of tenancy or any right under any arrangement to secure any premises for any purpose) which Caltex (India) held immediately before the appointed day, shall, 398 notwithstanding anything contained in any other law or in any agreement or instrument relating to such right or interest, vest in, and be held by, the central government on and after the appointed day on the same terms and conditions on which Caltex (India) would have held it, if no negotiations had taken place for the acquisition by the central government of the Undertakings of Caltex (India) in India or, as the ease may be, if this Ordinance had not been promulgated. ";