( 1 ) THE petitioners who are 17 in number and claim to be the legal heirs of late smt. Sakina Bai Haji Abdulla, who leased out her land in an extent of 1225 Sq. yds. situated in Municipal No. 10-3-5, mehdipatnam Cross Roads, Hyderabad, to m/s. Esso Standard Refining Company of india Limited [presently M/s. Hindustan petroleum Corporation Limited (for short the Corporation ), have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the following relief: to pass an order or orders, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent-Corporation in occupying and to be in possession of the premises (land) bearing Municipal No. 10-3-5, Mehdipatnam, cross Road, Hyderabad, belonging to the petitioners, as unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal and without any authority of law, and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1 ) (g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondent to hand over the premises to the petitioners, and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.

( 2 ) WHEN the writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation took notice and sought ten days time to file counter. Thereafter, at his request, the matter was adjourned two times. On 28-4-2003, when the writ petition came up for admission, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the subject-matter of this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the apex court in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Dolly Das as also the judgment of a learned single Judge of this court in w. P. No. 21004 of 2000, dated 5-7-2001. This fact is not disputed by the learned standing Counsel for the Corporation, and while admitting that the Corporation has implemented the judgment of this Court in w. P. No. 21004 of 2000, however, he submitted that though they filed a writ appeal before a Division Bench of this Court, no stay has been granted, and requested some more time to file counter. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on five occasions at the request of the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation. Ultimately, counter was filed on behalf of the respondents.

( 3 ) ON 18-7-2003, though the writ petition was listed under the caption "for admission", both the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel agreed for disposal of the writ petition itself on merit, and accordingly, they advanced their arguments for final disposal of the writ petition.

( 4 ) BEFORE we set out the arguments advanced on behalf of the rival parties, it would be convenient to make a note of the factual matrix of the matter, which runs thus: in the affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition, by one Sri. M. Srinivas Rao, who claims to be the Power of Attorney Holder of the petitioners, it is stated that in the year 1975, late Smt. Sakina Bai Haji Abdulla (hereinafter referred to as the landlady ) leased out the land in question in favour of m/s. Esso Standard Refining Company of india Limited [presently M/s. Hindustan petroleum Corporation Limited (for short the corporation ), initially for a period of five years w. e. f. 1-4-1975 for carrying on business in petroleum and petroleum products, on a monthly rent of Rs. 450. 00. After expiry of the initial lease period, the landlady, by lease deed dated 22-4-1980, extended the period of lease in favour of the corporation, by another ten years, commencing from 1-4-1980 and expiring on 31-3-1990. According to the petitioners, as per Clause 1 (f) of the lease deed, it was agreed to by the Corporation to deliver vacant possession of the leased premises on expiry of the lease period. While the terms and conditions of the lease being so, it is stated that during the currency of the lease period, the landlady, left to her heavenly abode in the year 1987.

( 5 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that after the