1 With consent of the learned counsel, matter is taken up immediately for final hearing and disposal.

2 Respondent no.1 is admittedly the landlord in respect of the premises admeasuring about 10,000 sq.ft. in Madhav Mills Estate, Lamington Road, Bombay. The said premises were let out under a registered indenture of lease in favour of Caltex India Ltd. for running petrol pump. As per the terms of the contract, period of the lease was 20 years and the agreed annual rent was Rs.33,000/-. It was further covenanted that on expiry of 20 years, the tenant would have an option to get the lease renewed for a further period of 10 years for which rent would be Rs.36,000/- per annum. Before expiry of the said period of ten years, the tenant would also be entitled to exercise option for further renewal for a period of 10 years at the rent of Rs.39,660/- per annum. For both the renewals, option was to be exercised before the expiry of the term. It also specifically provided that option of renewal would be in aggregate for two terms each of 10 years. During the original term of lease, the said shares and assets and liabilities of the Caltex India Ltd. were acquired by the Central Government under [The] Caltex [Acquisition of Shares of Caltex Oil Refining (India) Ltd. and of the undertakings in India of Caltex (India) Ltd.] Act, 1977) (Hereinafter referred to as the Caltex Act). As per the provisions of section 7(1) of the said Act, rights under any lease or tenancy or any other right to secure any premises for any purpose, which were held by the Caltex India Ltd. immediately before the appointed date, would vest in and be held by the Central Government on and after the appointed day on same terms and conditions on which the Caltex India Ltd. would have held. As per the provisions of Section 9, Central Government could direct vesting of such undertaking in a Government company. Revision applicant before this Court is the Government company in whom the rights under the lease in the present dispute were vested by the Government and thus, the applicant/defendant became tenant or lessee of the landlord/plaintiff. Original lease period of 20 years expired on 30.1.1984 and further period of 20 years beyond that also expired on 30th January, 2004. Plaintiff/landlord issued a notice dated 18th September, 2003 to the defendant no.1/applicant terminating the tenancy with effect from 31/1/2004. The notice was received but the defendant no.1 refused to vacate the premises. After expiry of the lease period even after computing the period for which the renewal could allowed, plaintiff filed suit no.57/67 of 2004 for eviction and possession. 3 Defendant nos.2 and 3 are the banks, who had opened their ATM centres in the said premises under licence from the defendant no.1. 4 Defendant no.1 contested the suit contending that the suit was pre-mature because as per the terms of the original contract, the Caltex India Limited was entitled to two terms of 10 years each by renewal beyond the period of 20 years and as per the provisions of the Caltex Act, defendant no.1 is also entitled to exercise option for further renewal for the lease period which was 40 years. Therefore, the defendant no.1 is statutory tenant under the said Act and suit is liable to be dismissed.

5 The trial Court after hearing the parties dismissed the suit. The plaintiff preferred appeal no.480/06 against the dismissal of the suit. The appellate Court allowed the appeal rejecting the contentions raised by the defendant no.1 and passed decree for eviction and possession and also directed to hold an enquiry for mesne profits under Order XX Rule 12 of the C.P.C. The said judgment and decree are challenged by the original defendant no.1 in the present revision application. 6 The learned counsel for the defendant no.1 vehemently contended that under the terms of the contract, Caltex India Ltd. was entitled to continue in possession as tenant for 40 years, inclusive of two terms of 10 years