IMPORTANT POINT
A lease agreement must be explicitly renewed; failure to do so results in termination of tenancy, allowing the landlord to reclaim possession.

JUDGMENT :

V.Gopala Krishna Rao, J.

This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘the C.P.C.’], is filed by the Appellant/defendant challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 07.01.2002, in O.S. No.25 of 1995 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli [for short ‘the trial Court’]. The first Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said Suit.

The first respondent/plaintiff died during the pendency of the appeal, the second respondent was brought on record as L.R. of first respondent/ plaintiff.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the Suit for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property and for recovery of damages to a tune of Rs.5,00,000/-.

3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No.25 of 1995, are as under:

In the year 1959, the suit schedule land was given for lease for 10 years to M/s.Caltex India Limited, Visakhapatnam by Sri P.V.G.Raju. In the year 1960 Sri P.V.G.Raju sold the said plaint schedule land to the plaintiff under the cover of registered sale deed. The lease that was given by Sri P.V.G.Raju to M/s.Caltex India Limited, Visakhapatnam had expired on 22.09.1969, thereafter at the request of M/s.Caltex India Limited, the plaintiff extended the term of lease for another 10 years, subsequently the name of M/s.Caltex India Limited was changed as Caltex Oil Refinery India Limited by virtue of order dated 09.05.1978 issued under Section 396 of Companies Act 1956. The undertaking of Caltex Refining India Limited stood transferred and vested in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and the lease agreement dated 10.01.1972 was renewed for a further term of 10 years and beyond 23.09.1989 there was no extension of lease. Therefore, the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited should vacate the suit schedule land and deliver the same to the plaintiff. The said land is required for the personal occupation of the plaintiff. Inspite of several requests by oral and also through notices, the defendant did not vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff issued notice dated 11.02.1991 under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act demanding the defendant to deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property, the defendant gave reply dated 28.03.1991 without vacating the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff also got issued notice dated 14.07.1994, the defendant sent reply dated 27.07.1994 without vacating the plaint schedule property. Any piece of land in the vicinity of the suit schedule land is fetching a minimum of Rs.10/- per square meter as rent. Since the defendant failed to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

5. The defendant filed a written statement by denying the averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended as under: -

The suit is barred by principles of estopple, waiver and acquiescence and the suit is barred by law of limitation. The notice issued under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act and notice dated 14.07.1994 are not valid and proper. The predecessor-in-interest of the defendant Caltex India Limited in order to set up retails outlets for petroleum products and motor accessories acquired a lease-hold interest of the plaint schedule land. Pursuant of the said lease, the Caltex India Limited was in possession of the said land and constructed structures, installed underground tanks, pumps and other equipment thereon and set up a retails outlet for sales of petroleum products and motor accessories and service stations and has been running the public utility since then. By and under the Caltex Limited and on the undertaking in India of Caltex India Limited ordinance 1976, the right, title and interest of the Caltex India Limited stand transferred to and vested in the Central Government. The said ordinance was subsequently replaced