JUDGMENT

RANGANATHAN, J.- Special leave to appeal is granted and the appeals are disposed of by a common order.

2. On June 9, 1936, Ramaswamy Gounder (the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents) executed a lease deed in favour of Gopal Sait (the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant). Certain passages from an English translation of the lease deed (which was in vernacular) are relevant for the purposes of the present case and they read thus:

"Whereas the property viz. vacant land, well and kaichalai etc. belongs to the party of the First part as his ancestral property;

Whereas the said property was leased out to party of the Second part on a monthly rental of Rs 12-8-0 for 15 years and taken possession by the party of the second part from party of the First part on December 3, 1935... and the party of the Second part for his convenience and at his own expenses and costs (was) permitted to construct in the said vacant land and instal petrol selling business....

[A]fter the expiry of lease period of 15 years i.e. on February 12, 1950 the lessee shall at his own expense remove the structure put up by him and deliver possession of the vacant land together with well and kaichalai in the present state...

Schedule

...vacant land situated in this bounded on the north by vacant land leased out for Burmah Oil Co. by the said Ramaswamy Gounder Gopalji Ratnaswami... all these vacant lands together with in the fourth plot measuring east to west 84 and north to south 16 together with half share in well therein together with tiled kaichalai ...together with door, doorways etc. There is no number for kaichalai"

3. It is common ground that the total vacant area covered by the lease was 3600 sq. ft. and that the kaichalai, referred to therein, was thirty-seven and a half by sixteen and a half feet i.e. of the extent of about 600 sq. ft. It also appears that even though there was initially no door number for the kaichalai, it was eventually given door No. 82 and the suit premises we are concerned with bear door Nos. 80, 81 and 82.

4. The lease was extended for a period of two years from January 1, 1951 by a fresh deed dated January 15, 1951 at an enhanced rent. This lease deed recited:

"On the expiry of two years, i.e. on December 31, 1952, the lessor has no objection for the removal of the structure put up by Burmah Shell petrol pump etc. except the extent of structure of thirty-seven and a half feet by sixteen and a half feet put up by the lessor...."

There was a fresh lease deed, again, executed on January 2, 1953 for a further period of three years at a higher rent. This deed also required the lessee, when delivering possession back to the lessor on the expiry of the lease, to remove the structures put up by him or the Burmah Shell Co. Ltd. "except the structure measuring thirty-seven and a half feet by sixteen and a half feet."

5. The lessee appears to have continued to occupy the property even beyond December 31, 1955 at a further enhanced rent. In 1962, we are told, the lessor filed a petition to evict the lessee under Sections 10(3)(a)(i) and 14(1)(b) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, alleging that he required the premises for personal occupation and for bona fide immediate demolition". The lessee defended the petition saying that the premises do not require any immediate demolition, that the premises are used for non-residential purposes and kept in good condition and that the petitioners requirement for personal occupation is not bona fide. The petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller observing that the premises did not need demolition and further that, as the premises had been leased out for non-residential purposes and the landlord could not seek its conversion into residential use without the Controllers application, the petitioners allegation that he required it for personal use was neither tenable nor bona fide.

6. Ramaswamy Gounder filed a petition again in 1979 for the eviction of the respondent but he di