DEEPA NARAYAN Vs. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Interesting is the issue involved in this Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, which stems from rejection of an application for reference under Sec. 113, read with Order 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs in the suit, C.S No.45/2020 (originally instituted as O.S No.78/2015) of the Sub Court, Ernakulam are the petitioners herein. The suit was for eviction of the lessee and for recovery of the property, as also, for recovery of a sum of Rs.2.00 Crores towards rent/damages for use and occupation. The essential facts are as follows:

(2.) The plaint schedule property having an extent of 21.850 cents was originally taken on lease by the Standard Vaccum Oil Company, a corporation registered as per laws of the State of Denver of the United State of America. The lease was for a period of ten years commencing from 24/6/1960, as per registered document No.2360/1960 of the S.R.O, Ernakulam and the rent fixed was Rs.185.00 per month. The successor of the leasehold rights was the ESSO Standard Eastern Inc. By virtue of ESSO (Acquisition of Undertakings in India)Act, 1974 (the 'ESSO Act', for short), the first defendant, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, became the lessee of the plaint schedule property. In an application preferred by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff under Sec. 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1960

(3.) The defendants filed written statement denying the above claims of the plaintiffs. They re-iterated their right under Sec. 106 of the KLR Act to resist the eviction sought for by the plaintiffs. It was contended that there was no implied surrender of the lease and that the first defendant stepped into the shoes of the original lessee by virtue of the provisions of the ESSO Act and is accordingly, entitled to all benefits conferred on the original lessee. The provisions of the KLR Act and the ESSO Act are not contradictory to each other. Inasmuch as all the factual requirements to claim the benefit of Sec. 106 of the KLR Act are satisfied, the defendants are not liable to be evicted, is the contention urged.