The main legal point established in the judgment is that the renewal clauses in the leases entitled the petitioner to renewal as a matter of right, and the refusal to renew the leases by the respondents was deemed illegal.

( 1 ) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the action of the respondents evidenced by their letter dated 09. 04. 2001 read with letters dated 18. 06. 2001 and 13. 12. 2002, whereby the respondents have refused to renew the lease of the petitioner society. The petitioner is a society which was formed in 1954 with the object of rehabilitating destitute children. Its activities centre around providing service and welfare to the needy and poor by conducting welfare and rehabilitation activities, including running of contract clubs, hobby centres, vocational training courses, homes and schools for socially and economically handicapped children, etc. In 1957, the petitioner society was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The petitioner was located at the premises which it occupies even today in Connaught Circus, New Delhi. The said premises were leased out to the petitioner by a Lease Deed executed on 11. 08. 1966 on behalf of the President of India for a period of 30 years w. e. f. 01. 01. 1965. It is the renewal of this lease and another related lease which is the subject matter of the present writ petition. The relevant clause in the lease which relates to renewal is clause 2 (viii) which reads as under:-

" (VIII) The Lessee shall on the expiry of the said lease period of thirty years, be entitled to a renewal of the lease for a further period of thirty years, or less on terms and conditions to be mutually agreed upon before renewal of lease. "

( 2 ) THE contention of the petitioner is that by virtue of the aforesaid clause, the petitioner being the lessee was, as a matter of right, entitled to a renewal of the lease for a further period of 30 years. Only the terms and conditions were to be mutually agreed upon before renewal of the lease. On the other hand, the respondents contend that the renewal of the lease was not automatic and even renewal had to be mutually agreed upon before the lease could be renewed. This is the short question which needs to be decided in this writ petition.

( 3 ) IT needs to be pointed out at the outset that the said lease is not an ordinary lease and as mentioned in clause 7 thereof itself, the said lease has been granted under the Government Grants Act, 1895. As such, the said lease is a Government Grant and has to be construed as such.

( 4 ) CERTAIN other facts also need to be noticed. The petitioner, after the said Lease Deed was executed, continued in the premises without any problem. On the said plot which had been leased out to the petitioner, a set of new buildings comprising of dining and recreation hall, hobby room, kitchen, etc, had been constructed by the respondent no. 1 as sanctioned by the Ministry of Industrial Development and Company Affairs by their letter dated 12. 05. 1967. The petitioner society requested the respondent no. 1 to grant to them a lease of the said new building at a nominal rent for the period ending 31. 12. 1994. In view of the fact that the petitioner was carrying on public and charitable activities, the said new building was also granted on lease to the petitioner by virtue of a Lease Deed executed on 25. 07. 1969. The lease of the said new building was for the period ending 31. 12. 1994, co-terminus with the lease of 1965. This second Lease Deed of 1969 also contained a similar renewal clause 2 (viii) as the earlier Lease Deed which reads as under:- " (viii) The Lessee shall on the expiry of the said lease period ending with 31st December, 1994 be entitled to a renewal of the lease for a further period of thirty years, or less, on the terms and conditions to be mutually agreed upon before renewal of lease. " this lease of 1969 was also granted under the Government Grants Act, 1895 and, therefore, is also to be construed as a Government Grant.

( 5 ) SOMETIME towards the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s, an idea was mooted for declaring the petitioner, i. e. , Bal Sahyog as a n