RAJU, J.

1. The above case has been referred by the District Munsif, Periakulam, on an application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in O.S. No. 865 of 1980, in I.A. 338 of 1981, referring the question relating to the Constitutional Validity of ESSO (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act (4 of 1974), to this Court.

2. The petitioner who made the application for reference, is the plaintiff in the suit and the respondent is the defendant. He submitted that the lease originally entered into between one Raju Chettiar and Messrs. Standard Vacuum Oil Company has expired and clause 3(d) of the Lease deed merely gave a period of extension and not for renewal of lease and therefore, the statutory extension pleaded by the defendant is not applicable to the circumstances of the case. In raising such a plea, it was contended for the plaintiff that the Act is expropriatory and violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner and therefore, is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced against the rights of the plaintiff/petitioner to hold his property under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. In substance, the challenge was to Sections 5 and 7(3) of Central Act 4 of 1974, w