JUDGMENT

KASLIWAL, JJ.

(1) SPECIAL leave granted.

(2) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High court dated 6/11/1990 whereby a suit filed by the Syndicate Bank under S. 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been decreed.

(3) THE East India Hotels Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company) took a loan of Rs. 30 lakhs from the Syndicate Bank. By an agreement dated 27/12/1974 the amount of Rs. 30 lakhs was advanced to the company on interest at the rate of 12.5 per cent per annum and . the amount was repayable in ten years. The Syndicate Bank executed a leave and licence agreement in favour of the company in respect of 15,000.00 sq. ft. on the mezzanine to the ground floor of the hotel Oberoi Towers situated at Nariman Point, Bombay on a monthly compensation of Rs. 60,000.00 per month, belonging to the company, for a period of 12 years. The leave and licence agreement inter alia provided that at the end of the said period of 12 years, the company shall, on the application of the licensee in writing, renew the licence for another period of 12 years if the company so deems fit on the terms and conditions to be mutually agreed upon. Admittedly the company repaid the entire loan and interest within the scheduled period. The company by a letter dated 17/09/1984 reminded the bank that the agreement was going to expire on 31/12/1986. The company also stated that as they were cramped for space, the bank should vacate the premises at the end of the term. The company by another letter dated 18/04/1986 again requested the bank to vacate the premises by the end of December 1986. The bank by its letter dated 8/07/1986 requested the company that the period of license may be renewed for a further period of 12 years. The company by its letter dated 9/08/1986 informed the bank that the request for renewal of licence was not acceptable and again requested the bank to hand over vacant possession on the expiry of the term. The bank did not hand over vacant possession of the premises even after December 1986 and sent the monthly compensation to the bank (sic company). The company did not accept the amount nor acquiesced in the continuance of possession of the bank after the expiry of the period of licence which came to an end on 31/12/1986. Some correspondence went on between the parties but the company did not agree for the extension of the period of licence. The company ultimately served a legal notice through their advocate on 22/01/1990 calling upon the bank to hand over vacant possession. The bank through their advocates sent a reply dated 12/02/1990 staling as under:

"I am gathering necessary instructions in the matter and shall revert to you with my clients reply within a reasonable time.

IN the meantime, I am instructed to state that my clients did not admit any of the contentions raised by your clients in your letter."

(4) ON 12/04/1990 a fire broke out in Oberoi Towers and as a result of which not only the bank but all the other shop owners had to vacate the premises. Thereafter, again some correspondence took place between the parties but the only circumstance necessary to be mentioned is that the bank started functioning its business at another place but its papers, furniture, fixtures etc. continued to remain in the premises. Initially the company permitted the staff of the bank to visit the premises on three days in a week but subsequently with effect from July 1990 the company did not permit them to enter the premises at all. In the above circumstances the bank filed a suit under S. 6 of the Act on 29/08/1990 on the original side of the Bombay High court. The company filed a written statement and contested the suit. A notice of motion was issued^for interim reliefs and it reached for hearing on 1/11/1990. On that date after the arguments of Mr Tuizapurkar, learned counsel for the plaintiff bank were over, Mr Nariman appearing for the defen