( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal and Cross-Objections are directed against the judgment of our learned brother. M. Ramachandra Raju. J. The dispute is between landlord and tenant. The suit properties are two shop-malgies in Secunderabad.

( 2 ) BY a registered lease-deed dated 31-12-1963 (Ex. A-12), the landlady leased out the premises to the appellant for a period of five years on a monthly rent of Rs. 550. 00. The tenancy was to commence on and from 1-1-1964. The lease-deed stipulated that the tenant shall not commit acts of waste or otherwise cause damage or loss to the premises and that, any such act on his behalf shall render him liable to eviction. The following clauses are relevant for the present purposes;--"3. That the tenancy under this agreement shall be for a period of five years from the date of this agreement and if the tenant vacates within the said period, the tenant is liable to pay the full rent for the remaining period out of the said five years. After the said five years if the tenant desires to continue the tenancy he can do so on the same terms and conditions as stated herein, provided he does not violate any of the terms and conditions herein. XXXXXX XXX (13) If the tenant or landlady wants to terminate the tenancy they should do so with one months notice to the other party. (14) If the tenant fails to comply with any of the terms the landlady is at liberty to evict the tenant without any notice after the maturity of the period mentioned here. . . . . ".

( 3 ) UNDER a settlement deed (Ex. A-13 ). dated 22-9-1965 the landlady settled this premises upon her minor children, who are the plaintiffs-respondents herein.

( 4 ) SOMETIME before the expiry of five years, the plaintiffs terminated the tenancy of the appellant for causing damage to. and committing acts of waste in the premises, and instituted a suit for eviction on 10-1-1969. (It may be noticed that the five year period prescribed under the lease-deed expired on and with 31/12/1968 ).

( 5 ) THE defendant (appellant) in his written statement denied the acts of damage and waste and submitted that under the lease-deed he had a right to continue for the full period of five years. He further submitted:"the defendant in fact before the expiry of the lease period, exercised his option through a notice dated 25-12-1968 which has been acknowledged by the plaintiff on 30-12-1968. The contract of renewal having come into force, confers immediate right on the defendant to hold the property for a further period on the same terms and conditions as in the registered rental agreement, and accordingly the defendant is enjoying the property under subsisting lease. The said contract of renewal and continuation of lease runs with the land and the plaintiffs, who claim to be the assignees of interest of the original lessor are equally bound by the same. Hence the question of handing over possession of the property to the plaintiffs does not arise. . . . . ". He therefore, submitted that the suit is misconceived.

( 6 ) ON the above pleadings, the learned trial Judge framed appropriate issues and. on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed before him. found (i) that the defendant is not guilty of acts of damage and waste. alleged against him. and (ii) that, the defendant has validly exercised his option of renewal in terms of Clause (3) of the lease deed and, therefore, has a right to continue in possession for a period of five years from 31-12-1968 to 30-12-1973. (It is significant to notice that this judgment was rendered on 16-2-1973. In other words, the renewal period of five years was not over by that date ). Accordingly, he dismissed the suit. (It is unnecessary to refer to other findings which have no relevance at this stage ).

( 7 ) THE plaintiffs preferred an appeal to this Court, which was heard by our learned brother. M. Ramachandra Raju. J. The learned Judge agreed with the trial Judge that, the defendant was not guilty of ac