The Caltex Act provides for only one renewal of the lease, and the appellants had already exercised their option to renew the lease in 1980.

1. These appeals arise out of the suits filed by the respondents for recovery of possession of the properties admittedly owned by them with damages. Both the courts have granted decrees for possession in favour of the plaintiffs. The trial court negatived the prayer for damages. On appeal the appellate court has granted a decree for damages at the rate of Rs. 300/- per mensem.

2. The first contention urged by learned Counsel for the appellants is that the suits are bad for want of notice under S. 80 of Civil Procedure Code. According to learned counsel the appellants are deemed to be Central Government by virtue of the provisions of 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. Learned counsel placed reliance on the provisions of S. 9 of the said Act. Under that Section, if the Central Government is satisfied that Government company is willing to comply or has complied with such terms and conditions as Government may think fit to impose, may, by Notification, direct that the right, title and interest and the liabilities of Caltex (India) in relation to any of the undertakings in India, shall instead of continuing to vest in the Central Government, vest in the Government company either on the date of Notification or on such earlier or later date not being a date earlier than the appointed day as may be specified in the Notification. Once such vesting takes place, the right, title and interest and the liabilities of Caltex (India) in relation to its undertakings in India vest in the Government company and on and from the date of such vesting, the company shall be deemed to own the rights and liabilities of the Central Government. With reference to Ss. 5, 6 and 7 of the Act so far as may be, they shall apply in relation to such Government Company as they apply in relation to Central government and for that purpose reference in those Sections to the Central Government shall be construed as reference to Government Company.

3. There is no merit in this contention. The appellants are undoubtedly limited companies registered under the Companies Act. The appellants represent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation limited, which has been registered under the Companies Act. It may be a Government Company. But it is certainly not, “Government” within the meaning of S. 80 of Civil Procedure Code. The legal fiction which is introduced will apply only to Ss. 5, 6 and 7 of the said Act and it cannot be carried to S. 80 of Civil Procedure Cod e. There is no question of the right of the Central Government being involved in this. It is a question of procedure for filing a suit against the Government. If it is a Government, S. 80 of Civil Procedure Code requires notice of two months and in this case the appellants are not the Government and they are only Limited Companies. Hence no notice under S. 80 of Civil Procedure Code is necessary.

4. Learned counsel refers to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Som Prakash v. Union of India (A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 212). Which considered the question whether for the purpose of Art. 12 of the Constitution of India, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited was a State or not. The Supreme Court held that it was a State within the meaning of Art. 12. But that will not in any way equate the Corporation to the Government within the meaning of S. 80 of Civil Procedure Code.

5. Learned counsel draws my attention to the Judgment of the Bombay High Court in “ Trade Centre D. and B. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (A.I.R. 1985 Bombay 4). The Court had to consider the validity of Ss. 5(2) and 73) of ESSO (Acquisition of Undertakings of India) Act 14 of 1974 with reference to Arts. 14, 19 and 31(c) of the Constitution of India. That judgment has nothing to do with the present preposition of law urged by learned counsel. Hence the first contention is rejected.

6. The second contention of learne