( 1 ) THESE two Letters Patent Appeals and the two Miscellaneous Petitionsarise out a common judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in CCCA nos. 41 and 112 of 1986 dismissing the appeals filed by the Indian Oil corporation (IOC) against the decree granted by the Additional Chief Judgecum-I add. Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, at Hyderabad in the suit o. S. No. 465 of 1983 filed by the landlady for eviction of the IOC from the suit site and dismissing the suit filed by the IOC for specific performance. As all these matters are inter-connected, we dispose them of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the appellant is referred to as the IOC and the respondent as the landlady.

( 2 ) THE IOC taken on tease an extent of 545 sq. Yards of prime land bearing no. 5-9-29/3 situate at Basheerbagh, Hyderabad a highly valuable commercial area, for a period of ten years from the landlady Mrs. Karim Zahir Yarjung commencing from 1-8-1966 and ending with 31-7-1976 with a condition for renewal. The purpose for which the IOC obtained the lease was to instal a petrol pump and servicing station. The registered lease deed executed in this behalf was Ex. A-8 document bearing No. 1182 of 1967. As there was certain discrepancy, a rectification deed, Ex. A-2, was got executed and registered on 30-4-1968. The lease amount fixed was Rs. 1,150/- per month.

( 3 ) THE I. O. C. in turn, entered into a dealership agreement with one m/s. Excels under which the latter was appointed as a dealer and was permitted to run the business for and on behalf of the IOC as its dealer. On expiry of the period of ten years, the IOC called upon the landlady to execute a lease deed renewing the lease for a further period of ten years with efect from 31-7-1976. As that did not materialise, the IOC filed a suit for specific performance - O. S. No. 1145 of 1981 on 14-8-1981, which was subsequently renumbered as O. S. No. 385 of 1983 - directing the landlady to execute and register a lease deed in its favour for a period of ten years from 1-8-1976 on a monthly rental of Rs. 1,800/- incorporating all the terms and conditions contained in the earlier lease deed, Ex. A-8, inclusive of the clause as to renewal. It was alleged by the IOC in the plaint that the landlady avoided executing a renewal lease deed on some pretext or the other and after some correspondence in this regard, the landlady insisted upon higher rental of rs. 2,500/- per month. A meeting took place between the representative of the IOC and one Mr. Chenoy acting on behalf of the landlady and in that meeting it was made clear on behalf of the landlady that the fresh lease deed should stipulate that the IOC should vacate the premises by 31-7-1986 and that the renewal clause should be deleted. As this condition was not to the liking of the IOC, the landlady there after sent a letter dated 6-12-1978, ex. A-7, expressing her willingness to receive Rs. 2,500/- per month towards rent but stipulating the condition that the lease deed should clearly mention that the first term of the lease had expired on 2-8-1976 and the further period shall be deemed to be in continuation of that period and that she should have the choice to accordor refuse further extension. Rejecting this request, the suit was laid by the IOC.

( 4 ) THE landlady, in her written statement, inter alia, had asserted that the renewal clause in Ex. A-8 contemplated an agreement as to the quantum of rent payable after the expiration of the first period of ten years i. e. , subsequent to31-7-1976 and unless such an agreementhad materialised, there would not be any question of renewing the lease. As the IOC did not agree to her condition to receive rent at Rs. 1,800/- per month and delete the clause concerning renewal from the lease deed to be executed in future, the lease Ex. A. 8, stood terminated and the tenancy after 31-7-1976 was from month to month as per the English calendar and so the IOC had no right to be in p