MARIAMMA THOMAS Vs. BHARAT REFINERIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner of an extent of 36 cents of land in Sy. No 730/2 in Piravom Village, Muvattupuzha Taluk. It is stated that she has, no other property, and that she resides in an old and small house situated in a portion of the land in question. In 1953 she entered into an agreement of lease with the Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited (the "Burmah Shell") acting through their agents. M/s. Ramaswamy Iyer & Sons, Muvattupuzha. The deed of lease provided that the term of the lease was to be 12 years. The rent was also specified. The deed did not contain any specific provision for renewal of the lease. At the end of 12 years, that is in 1965, the petitioner and the Burmah Shell renegotiated for renewal of the lease. The parties came to an agreement that the lease would be renewed upon the same terms and conditions, but subject to an enhancement of the rent. The rent was accordingly enhanced and the lease operated for another term of 12 years which expired on 31-12-1976. During the operation of the second term of the lease, that is on 24-1-1976, the impugned legislation, the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertaking in India) Act, 1976 (Act No. 2 of 1976) (the "Act") came into force. As a result of this Act . all the right, title and interest of the Burmah Shell in relation to its undertakings in India stood transferred to the Government of India. On the date on which the Act came into force, the Central Government issued a notification under S 7 of the Act whereby the right, title and interest which vested in the Government stood transferred to a Government Company called the Burmah Shell Refineries Limited. On 12-2-1976 by a fresh certificate of incorporation under S.23 of the Companies Act 1956, the name of the Government Company was changed to Bharat Refineries Limited, the first respondent herein.

(2.) By virtue of the provisions of S.5 and 7 of the Act, the first respondent wrote to the petitioner that it desired to have the lease between the petitioner and the Burmah Shell renewed in favour of the 1st respondent for another term with effect from 1-1-1977 upon "terms similar to those existed in the current lease". The petitioner informed the 1st respondent that she was willing to renew the lease for another term, provided the rent was enhanced. This is what she stated in Ext. P2 dated 25-10-1976:

(3.) The first respondent refused to accede to the request of the petitioner for revision of the rent. Letters were exchanged between the petitioner and her lawyer and the first respondent. Finally by Ext. P8 dated 3-11-1978 the first respondent wrote to the petitioner as follows: