JUDGEMENT.- The plaintiffs in O. S. No. 4120 of 1968 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, are the appellants herein. They are admittedly the owners of premises No. 38/3, Mount Road, Madras. The respondent herein took on lease the ground floor of the above premises on a rent of Rs. 4,000 per month. The lease was evidenced by a registered deed dated 22nd April, 1964, Exhibit A-1, in this case. On the same date, an agreement also was entered into between the parties. The lease was to commence from 1st January, 1964 and to be in force for a period of three years till 31st December, 1966. The lease deed contained a covenant for renewal at the option of the lessee for a further period of three years on the same conditions as contained in Exhibit A-1. It is the admitted case of the parties that before the expiry of the three years prescribed in Exhibit A-1, namely 31st December, 1966, the respondent herein exercised the option to renew the lease for a further period of three years and the appellant herein assented to the same. Later in 1967, it would appear that the Secretary of the respondent company had met the second appellant on several days and informed him that the respondent would like to vacate the portion which it was occupying in the appellant’s premises since it had been feeling for some time that it needed more space to meet its increasing requirements. That fact is mentioned in Exhibit B-6 dated 8th December, 1967 addressed by the Administrative Officer of the respondent company to the appellants herein. In that letter, the said Officer, while informing the appellants that the respondent had been successful in locating a place to which it would like to shift by 31st January, 1968 at the latest, also stated that if, however, it would be more convenient from the appellants’ point of view that the respondent should continue in the present premises for a little more time, it would not mind extending the date of shifting to the new premises to 15th February, 1968 or 29th February, 1968 and that the respondent would be glad to hear from the appellants in this regard as soon as possible. To the above letter, the appellants sent Exhibit B-7 dated 16th December, 1967 stating that by about the expiration of the term of lease, three years under the original agreement, in terms thereof, the respondent itself opted for a renewal for another three years and intimated them also, which was duly confirmed by them ; that it was nearly a year since then, and that at that stage they were sorry that they were unable to do anything in the matter of the respondent’s request through Exhibit B-6 . On receipt of Exhibit. B-7, the Administrative Officer of the respondent company wrote Exhibit B-8 dated 28th December, 1967, stating that the respondent, no doubt, desired to continue in the appellants’ premises beyond the period of the lease and the appellants were kind enough to agree to that ; that the respondent would have been quite happy to continue in the present premises but for the reasons explained to the appellants in person by the respondent’s Secretary and reiterated in its letter of even number dated 8th December, 1967 ; and that the appellants were also kind enough to appreciate the respondent’s need for a change of premises at that stage. The letter proceeded to state that in view of what was stated earlier, the respondent would find it necessary to shift from the present premises to a new building which it had been able to locate, sometime by the end of February, 1968, and that the respondent would be glad if the appellants would kindly arrange to take over the building from the Secretary of the respondent. The appellants wrote Exhibit A-3 dated 6th January, 1968 to the respondent stating, that they were unable to accede to the respondent’s request for determining the arrangement midterm, since the respondent itself opted for a further period of three years from 1st January, 1967 and a year had elapsed in the renewed term also

Click Here to Read the rest of this document