1988 (9) TMI 357 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Entitlement of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited to the protection of Section 15A of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
2. Justification of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court's holding regarding the extinguishment of the leave and licence agreement upon acquisition by the Central Government.
3. Determination of whether the dispute is a 'dispute touching the business of the society' under Section 91(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Protection under Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act:

The principal question was whether Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), as the successor-in-interest of Esso Eastern Inc., was entitled to the protection of Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act. The court found that Esso Eastern Inc. was in occupation of the flat in question as of February 1, 1973, under a subsisting licence, thus acquiring the status of a tenant under Section 15A. The Esso (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1974, transferred the tenancy rights to the Central Government, which subsequently vested in HPCL. The court concluded that HPCL, being a successor-in-interest, was entitled to the protection of Section 15A, as Esso Eastern Inc. had acquired the status of a deemed tenant.

2. Justification of the Appellate Court's Holding on Extinguishment of the Licence:

The Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court held that the leave and licence agreement was purely personal and extinguished upon the acquisition of Esso Eastern Inc. by the Central Government. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the Appellate Court failed to give effect to the admissions made by Smt. Nanki M. Malkani, which indicated a subsisting agreement of leave and licence as late as March 24, 1980. The court emphasized that the tenancy rights acquired under Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act were transferred to the Central Government and then to HPCL. The court concluded that the findings of the Appellate Court were erroneous and that HPCL was entitled to the protection under Section 15A.

3. Dispute Touching the Business of the Society:

The third issue was whether the claim for ejectment of an occupant of a flat in a cooperative housing society constituted a 'dispute touching the business of the society' under Section 91(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The court did not find it necessary to address this issue in detail, as it was already covered by the decision in O.N. Bhatnagar v. Smt. Rukibai Narsindas & Ors., reiterating the principles laid down therein.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, quashing the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court and the proceedings initiated by the Shyam Co-operative Housing Society for the eviction of the petitioners. The court affirmed that HPCL was entitled to the protection of Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act, and the findings of the Appellate Court were manifestly erroneous. The petition was allowed, and the eviction proceedings were quashed.