Sen, J. - (1.) The principal question in controversy in this petition under Art. 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. 139A of the Constitution, is whether the petitioner is entitled to the protection of S. 15A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, introduced by Maharashtra Act No. 17 of 1973 read with S. 5 of the Esso (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1974.
(2.) Put very briefly, the essential facts are these. The Esso Eastern Inc., a company 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. The company had taken several flats in the Metropolitan City of Greater Bombay and elsewhere for accommodating their employees including Flat No. 85 in Block No. 8 in the housing colony known as Shyam Niwas situate at Warden Road, now 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. Nanki M. Malkani, respondent No. 2 herein. On 4th December, 1968 respondent No. 1 Shyam Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. passed a Resolution admitting petitioner No. 2 T. J. Mansuknani, an employee of the company, as a nominal member of the society though he was not the licensee. The company on 16th January, 1970 exercised the option of renewal of the licence for another year i e. till 30th November, 1970. On 29th November, 1971, respondent No. 2 Smt. Nanki M. Malkani addressed a letter to the company 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 for three years on the expiry of each term of licence i.e. on 30th November, 1971, 30th November, 1972 and 30th November, 1973. In the meanwhile, the State Legislature of Maharashtra enacted Act No. 17 of 1973. The amendment Act also made consequential changes to which we shall presently refer. Doubtedly, the Esso Standard Inc. was in occupation of the flat in question as on 1st February, 1973 and thus acquired the status of a tenant under S. 15A of the Act.
(3.) On 13th March, 1974, the Esso (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1974 was brought into force. As from that date, 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. On 9th April, 1975, respondent No. 2 Smt. Nanki M. Malkani sent a communication to the petitioner affirming the terms and conditions of the licence. Again, on 24th March 1975, she addressed a letter confirming that she had given the aforesaid flat to Esso Eastern Inc. in December 1968 on leave and licence basis and the petitioner being the success or in title of that company had been occupying the flat as licensee on the same terms and conditions. On 11th September, 1986, the society passed a resolution, calling upon the petitioner Corporation to vacate the said premises and directing that respondent No. 2 Smt. Nanki M. Malkani should herself occupy the flat. Upon failure of the Corporation to vacate the premises, the society on 15th September, 1986 filed an application under S. 91(l) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 before the 3rd Cooperative Court, Bombay for eviction of the petitioner and its employee. On 7th January, 1981, petitioner No. 1 permitted another employee to occupy the flat. The 3rd Cooperative Court, Bombay after consideration 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 licencee under S. 15A of the Bombay Rent Act and the said protection could not be taken away merely by the society making a claim for eviction under S. 91(l) of the Act. Aggrieved, the society went up in appeal to the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court which by its judgment dated 17th March, 1964 allowed the appeal and decreed the claim of the society requiring petitioner No. 1 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. to vacate-Flat No. 35 in Block No. 8 of the society building with a further direction that respondent No. 2 Smt. Nanki M. Malkani should occupy the flat in question herself. Thereupon, the petitioner moved the High Court under Art. 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.;