Benefit claimed can not be allowed to tenant.

The 1st defendant, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited in O.S.No.1286 of 1972 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Erode is the petitioner in this civil revision petition against the concurrent dismissal of its I.A.No.374 of 1979 in the said suit filed under Sec.9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants’ Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for purchasing the suit land, with reference to which the abovesaid suit by the 1st respondent herein, sought the relief of possession.

2. The 2nd defendant in the said suit, viz. Lorry Owners’ Association is a dealer under the 1st defendant, selling petroleum products of the 1st defendant at the suit site. But, it did not file the abovesaid Sec.9 application, but, only the 1st defendant filed the said application.

3. The trial court has dismissed the said application and the appeal therefrom in C.M.A.No.32 of 1983 filed by the 1st defendant also ended in dismissal. Hence, this civil revision petition.

4. Admittedly, there was lease of suit site in favour of the 1st defendant’s predecessor the Coltex (India) Ltd., right from 1953 upto 22. 1976, as borne out by the relevant documents and thereafter, there was no renewal of the said lease. But, the enactment, The Caltex (Acquisition of Shares of Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited and of the Undertakings in India of Caltex (India) Limited Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Caltex Act’) came into force on 30.12.1976, whereby the right, title and interests of the abovesaid company Caltex (India) Limited in relation to its undertakings in India stood vested in the Central Government as per Sec.5 of the said enactment. Further, it is also agreed that subsequently to the notification under Sec.9 of the Caltex Act, the abovesaid right, title, etc., Company’s assets vested with a Government Company, called Caltex Refining Company of India Limited. Subsequently, as per Ex.B-3 dated 5. 1978, the said Government Company was amalgamated with the petitioner-Company, viz. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, which has filed the abovesaid I.A.No.374 of 1979. The suit site is situate in Perundurai, to which the abovesaid Tamil Nadu City Tenants’ Protection Act was extended by the relevant notification from 26. 1975.

5. In the light of the abovesaid facts, of which, there is no dispute, the courts below have concurrently dismissed the said application on two independent grounds, (1) that the provisions of the abovesaid Sec.9 cannot be availed of by the petitioner since it is only an assignee of the original lease in favour of the abovesaid Caltex (India) Limited after the abovesaid date 26. 1975 and not prior. In this connection the courts below have relied on Abdul Mallik v. Fr.Joseph Sandanam, (1975)2 M.L.J. 204 and (2) that the petitioner is not in physical possession of the suit site and only the 2nd defendant is in physical possession thereof and the provisions of Sec.9 of the Act can be invoked only by the tenant who is in physical possession of the site in question.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner attacks both the abovesaid reasons given by the courts below. Regarding the first reason, the learned counsel admits that the present case is not one of assignment of the lease, but acquisition of the leasehold interest from the lessee Caltex (India) Limited, by separation of law, under the Caltex Act and thaqt hence, the above said Abdul Mallik v. Fr.Joseph Sandanam, (1975)2 M.L.J. 204, which dealt with a case of assignment of lease, would not apply to the present case. Instead, he relies on Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Francis, (1989) 2 M.L.J. 530, which is also a case of succession by operation of law, no doubt under a different, but said to be similar enactment, viz. The Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Burmah Shell Act’). Regarding the other reason given by the courts below, the said counsel submits that the 2nd defendant is only a lice