N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

1. The defendants are the appellants. The suit was for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property and also for arrears of rent amounting to Rs.29,145/- which was the rent for the period from 23/09/2004 till 4/6/2007 the date of termination of lease. Besides, the plaintiff also claimed damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month from 5-6-2007 to 5-11-2007 and for the period till the date of surrender of possession of the building. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed. Hence, this Second Appeal.

2. The following are the substantial questions of law framed in this case:-

(i) Whether the date of execution of the lease deed or the date of commencement of the lease arrangement agreed upon by the parties is the date of the lease ?

(ii) If the original lease executed expires before 20th May 1967 and on expiry of the original lease parties entered into a renewal deed, whether there is continuity of the lease arrangement or not and whether the lessee can claim the benefits of Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act if the renewal of lease was prior to 20th May 1967 and proved the requirements of Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act ?

(iii) What is the effect of non-obstante Clause in Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act on the lease deed already executed in claiming the benefit of Section 106 ignoring the terms of the lease ?

3. The plaintiffs contended that they obtained title to the property on the strength of the registered deeds Exts. A1 to A10 executed in the year 2004. Total extent covered by those documents is 51.650 cents, out of which 31.650 cents is the plaint schedule property belonging to plaintiffs 1 and 2. The balance 20 cents is stated to be lying adjacent to the plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule property was leased out by the plaintiffs' predecessors-in-interest to Burmash Shell Oil Storage & Distributing Company of India Limited as per Ext.B1 lease deed No. 1155/1958. It was granted for the purpose of operating a retail sales outlet for the sale of petroleum and petroleum products, either directly or through a licensee, subject to the terms and conditions contained in Ext.B1 lease deed. By the Burmash Shell (Acquisition of undertaking in India) Act 1976, the right, title and interest of that Company stood transferred and vested in the Central Government. Thereafter, the first defendant company was incorporated as a fully owned Government Company. The first defendant Company became the successor-in-interest of the original lessee. In Ext. B1, it was stated that the rent would be paid from 1-6-1966 provided that "no objection" from the Inspector of Explosives, Local authorities etc. were received and the construction work was started by the lessee after the execution of the lease deed. Prior to 30/3/1968 the date of the lease deed, there was no construction of any petrol outlet in the plaint schedule property. Since the constructions were made after the execution of the lease deed on 30/3/1968 the defendants are not entitled to the protection under Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (the KLR Act for short). Since the term of lease expired, the defendants are to surrender the demised premises. A registered notice was sent to the defendants to which a reply raising false contention was sent. Hence the suit was filed.

4. The third plaintiff who is the son of the first plaintiff was also joined in the party array since a portion of his land was alleged to have been trespassed upon by the defendants.

5. A written statement was filed by the defendants inter alia contending that the defendants are entitled to the protection under Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. It was contended that the plaint schedule property was obtained by the predecessor-in-interest of the first defendant on lease before 1953, from the then jenmi. The lease was obtained for the purpose of erecting fu