The main legal point established in the judgment is that the lessor has the right to seek enhancement of rent as a condition for renewal of the lease under the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act. Additionally, the lessor has the right to vary the rent under S.106 of the Land Reforms Act, subject to the conditions of the Act.

Petitioner is the landlady of the petition schedule property. A lease of this land was granted to Burmah Shell Company by one Achuthan Nair on 30-7-1964. A lease agreement was executed. An amount of Rs. 2,160/- was paid by the lessee and the period of lease was twenty years from 1-12-1963. The Burmah Shell Company was subsequently taken over by Government of India and is now known as Bharat Petroleum Corporation of India. The lease agreement stipulated for payment of quarterly rent of Rs. 210/- for the first 10 years and thereafter at the rate of Rs. 330/- per quarter.

2. The property had been outstanding on kanom demise in favour of Mangot Kalathil tarwad. In partition of that tarwad the property was allotted to the tavazhy of Kunhulakshmi Amma whose rights were purchased by petitioner on 13-5-1975. She had also obtained purchase certificate from the Land Tribunal. The lease by Achuthan Nair was granted while the property was in the possession of Mangotkalathil tarwad.

3. The petition schedule property has an area of 12292 sq. feet and is situated in the heart of Shoranur Town. Shoranur is a Municipality and the property where a filling station is run by respondent is situated on the side of the highway. The prevailing monthly rent would be more than Rs. 2/- per sq. feet. The present rent is quite inadequate. Petitioner therefore wanted revision of rent at the rate of fifty paise per sq. feet. With these allegations a petition was filed before Special Deputy Collector (Land Tribunal), Palghat as A. 2/86.

4. First respondent resisted that petition and contended that the rent stipulated under the agreement is reasonable and that the company being fully owned by the Government of India the request for revision of rent under the Land Reforms Act is not sustainable. They also claimed the protection under the provisions in the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, Act 2 of 1976.

5. A commissioner was appointed by the Tribunal to inspect the site and submit a report. A report was submitted by him after inspection. A witness was examined on the side of petitioner and one witness on the side of the respondent. Documents were also produced on the side of petitioner. On a consideration of the documents and evidence the Land Tribunal revised the rent and fixed the rent at ten paise per Sq. feet per mensem. On appeal the appellate Authority (Land reforms ) Trichur reversed that decision and dismissed the petition finding that the landlady is not entitled to file a petition for enhancement of rent by virtue of the provisions contained in the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act. Hence the revision.

6. The appellate Authority denied the relief of revision of rent for the reason that the Central Government can get the tenancy renewed on the same terms and conditions on which the lease or tenancy held by Burmah Shell Company immediately before the appointed day. The previous land owner had entered into a lease agreement with Burmah Shell Company and by the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertaking in India) Act 1976 by which that undertaking was nationalised and the assets and liabilities were taken over by the Central Government. S.5(1) of the Act provides that where any property is held by Burmah Shell in India under any lease or under any right of tenancy the Central Government shall on and from the appointed day be deemed to have become the lessee or tenant as the case may be in respect of such property. All the rights under such lease or tenancy shall be deemed to have been transferred to and vested in the Central Government. It is stipulated in sub-section (2) of S.5 that if so desired by the Central Government the tenancy shall be renewed on the same terms and conditions on which the lease or tenancy held by Burmah Shell immediately before the appointed day. Relying on this provision it is strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the first respondent that the renewal can only be on th