G. SRIDHARAMURTI versus HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 634 · Decided: 13-09-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
G. SRIDHARAMURTI 
v. 
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 13, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY 
AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ .] 
Rent and Eviction : 
C 
Kamataka Rent Control Act, 1961/Esso (Acquisition of Undertakings 
in India) Act, 1974: 
Sections 21(1)(/) and 23(1)-Non-agricultural <and-Leased out to 
Essa Company-Essa Company merged into Hindustan Petroleum Corpora-
tion-Premises Trans/ erred to Corporation-Landowners application for 
D ejectment on ground of sub-letting-:-Held, Corporation became statutory 
tenant-Transfer was not a voluntary act of assignment of interest intra 
vivas-Application for ejectment dismissed. 
E 
F 
Constitution of India : 
Anicle 254( 1)-Seventh Schedule, List III, Entry 6--Laws made by 
Parliament and Legislature of a State-Inconsistency between-Section 7 of 
Essa (Acquisition of Undenakings in India) Act, 1974 enacted by Parliament 
and section 23 of Kamataka Rent Control Ac~ 1961 occupying same 
field-Held, both cannot exist hannoniously-To the extent of inconsistency 
Kamataka Act becomes void. 
The appellant leased out the premises in dispute to Esso Company 
in July, 1969. The said company was merged into the respondent- Corpora-
tion on March 14, 1974. The appellant filed· an eviction petition under 
section 21 (l)(t) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 against the Esso 
G Company and the respondent-Corporation for ejectment on the ground of 
sub-letting. The courts below dismissed the application holding that the 
Esso Company did not sublet the demised premises but by virtue of 
statutory operation of the Esso (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 
1974 the respondent-Corporation stood transposed as a tenant. The High 
H Court affirmed the said decision. Aggrieved, the owner of the premises 
634 
• 
G. SRIDHARAMURTI v. H.P.C. LTD. 
635 
filed the appeal by special leave. 
It was contended by the appellant that in view of the non- obstante 
clause of sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 
1961, continuance of the respondent-Corporation in the premises would be 
deemed to be sub-letting within the meaning of section 21 (l) (f) of the Act. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
A 
B 
HELD : 1.1. By statutory operation of the Esso (Acquisition of 
Undertakings in India) Act, 1974, the pre-existing tenancy rights held by 
Esso Company with the appellant initially stood transferred and vested in C 
the Central Government, and thereafter, by operation of Section 7 of the 
Esso Act, the said rights in turn stood transposed and vested in the 
respondent-Corporation as if the respondent-Corporation statutorily be-
came the tenant of the appellant-landlord. It is not voluntary act of the 
assignment of interest intra vivos. [638-A-B, G) 
1.2. On the Esso Act coming into force, by operation of Sections 5 
and 7 thereof, the respondent-Corporation became statutory tenant and 
thereby it cannot be construed to be an assignment of tenancy rights, which 
the appellant-landlord had entered int9 with the Esso Company, by the 
D 
Central Government in favour of the respondent-Corporation. [638-E) 
E 
1.3. Though sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Karnataka Act 
employing non-obstante clause excluded operation of any other enactment, 
there is no specific provision in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the 
Constitution Covering the Act. On the other hand, by virtue of Entry 6 of F 
List III of the Seventh Schedule, the legislature of the State and also 
Parliament can enact law in relation to immovable property. Since the 
Esso Act is a Central enactment, and latter too, the non-obstante clause 
in Section 7 of the Esso Act excludes the operation of Section 23 of the 
Karnataka Act. Both, the Karnataka Act and the Esso Act, occupy same G 
field and both cannot exist harmoniously. So to the extent of inconsistency, 
the Karnataka Act becomes void by operation of Article 254 of the Con· 
stitution. [638-C-D] 
M/s. Parasram Hamand Rao v. Shanti Prasad Narinder Kumar Jain 
and Anr., [1980) 3 sec 565; inapplicable. 
H 
636 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8780 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25/26.6.90 of the Karnataka 
High Court in C.R.P. No. 3628 of 1982. 
B 
S.K. Kulkarni for Surya Kant for the Appellant. 
c 
Santosh Hegde, M.K. Michael, Rajiv Kapur and Wasim Qadri for 
Ms. Sushma Suri for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.