JUDGMENT :

Interesting is the issue involved in this Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, which stems from rejection of an application for reference under Section 113, read with Order 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs in the suit, C.S No.45/2020 (originally instituted as O.S No.78/2015) of the Sub Court, Ernakulam are the petitioners herein. The suit was for eviction of the lessee and for recovery of the property, as also, for recovery of a sum of Rs.2 Crores towards rent/damages for use and occupation. The essential facts are as follows:

2. The plaint schedule property having an extent of 21.850 cents was originally taken on lease by the Standard Vaccum Oil Company, a corporation registered as per laws of the State of Denver of the United State of America. The lease was for a period of ten years commencing from 24.06.1960, as per registered document No.2360/1960 of the S.R.O, Ernakulam and the rent fixed was Rs.185/-per month. The successor of the leasehold rights was the ESSO Standard Eastern Inc. By virtue of ESSO (Acquisition of Undertakings in India)Act, 1974 (the 'ESSO Act', for short), the first defendant, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, became the lessee of the plaint schedule property. In an application preferred by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff under Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1960 (the 'KLR Act', for short), the rent was fixed at Rs.1420.25 per month. However, the Appellate Authority(Land Reforms, Alappuzha), by its Order in L.R.A. No. 476 of 1979, modified the Order of Land Tribunal, only as regards the date from which enhanced rent is to be paid. Dehors the expiry of the lease and the extended period, as envisaged in the ESSO Act, defendants 1 and 2 are continuing in the plaint schedule property for a meagre rent of Rs.65/-per month. It is averred in the plaint that the provisions of the KLR Act is not applicable to the lease arrangement between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The plaint also refers to the reply issued by the defendants to the lawyer's notice issued by the plaintiffs, wherein the defendants claim benefit under Section 106 of the KLR Act, to contend that they are not liable to be evicted from the plaint schedule premises. It is further contended that, pursuant to the promulgation of the ESSO Act, the first defendant opted to enjoy the benefits of renewal under the same and that statutory renewal of lease resulted in implied surrender of the rights under the lease deed bearing No.2360/1960 afore- referred. The plaintiffs also contended that the ESSO Act will prevail over Section 106 of the KLR Act, inasmuch as, the former is a central enactment, which will override the provisions of the State enactment, in case of conflict. The ESSO Act provides only for renewal of lease, whereas Section 106 of the KLR Act entitles the tenant to remain in the property without any threat of dispossession. Under the ESSO Act, the rent cannot be enhanced, whereas the KLR Act provides for enhancement. The KLR Act bars lease of land, whereas the ESSO Act provides for one renewal. Thus, according to the plaintiffs, the two statutory schemes are mutually conflicting, that no harmonious interpretation is possible and therefore, the KLR Act, especially Section 106 thereof, cannot apply to the premises governed by the ESSO Act. The specific contention urged in the plaint is that, Section 106 of the KLR Act is void by operation of Article 254 of the Constitution in the light of the provisions of the ESSO Act.

3. The defendants filed written statement denying the above claims of the plaintiffs. They re-iterated their right under Section 106 of the KLR Act to resist the eviction sought for by the plaintiffs. It was contended that there was no implied surrender of the lease and that the first defendant stepped into the shoes of the original lessee by virtue of the provisions of the ESSO Act and is accordingly, entitled to all benefits conferred on the or