The main legal point established in the judgment is that the lessor was entitled to ask for enhancement of the rent as a condition for renewal of the lease, as provided in the lease and in accordance with the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertaking in India) Act, 1976.

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 "Burman 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 Ss.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:

Regarding renewal of the lease I have to inform you that the present rent of Rs. 50/-per month is not acceptable to me. This rate was fixed some 12 years ago which was low even at that time. It is my understanding that the prevailing market rate in the area for similar premises could be any where between Rs 700/-and Rs. 1,000/-per month. If you can offer me a fair and reasonable rent for the premises; I will be willing to renew the lease"

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:

We reiterate that we have no intention of vacating the site and assert our right to obtain a renewal of lease of this site for 12 years from 1-1-1977.

4. Aggrieved by the stand taken by the first respondent the petitioner has approached this Court contending that the first respondent has no power or authority to insist upon renewal of the lease without agreeing to a fair enhancement of the rent. It is contended that the Act in terms of which the first respondent purports to act has not conferred any such power. It is further contended that if any such power on a proper construction of the provisions of the Act, is found to have been conferred upon the first respondent, such conferment of power is violative of constitutional provisions and in excess of legislative competence.

5. Having beard counsel on both sides, we are of the view that the question raised by the petitioner ca