Right to do renewal is only on same terms and conditions.

The Chief Justice:

This Second Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and decree of the learned IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, dated 23.9.2003 passed in A.S.No.135 of 2000.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. We are deeply distressed by the facts of this case. The appellant is a Public Sector Corporation and therefore was expected to behave like an ideal person, but in this case we find that it has been illegally retaining possession of the property in dispute for 16 years after 1989 when its lease had admittedly come to an end. These days, unfortunately, some people are illegally holding on to the property over which they have no right to continue in possession once the period of the lease or grant ceases to exist. This is most improper and cannot be appreciated by this Court, particularly since the appellant which is a Public Sector Undertaking must know how to respect the law.

4. The suit, from which this appeal has arisen, was filed by the respondents for recovery of vacant possession of the property in dispute and for damages till the date of handing over vacant possession.

5. The facts of the case are that the suit property was let out by the plaintiffs/respondents to the Standard Vacuum Oil company by lease deed dated 16.1.1959 for a period of 10 years. Before the expiry of the lease period, the Standard Vacuum Oil Company was renamed as Esso Eastern Incorporation. The Esso Eastern Incorporation requested the plaintiffs to extend the tenancy by another ten years which was refused by the plaintiffs as they required the suit property for their own use and occupation. The said Esso Eastern Incorporation filed O.S.No.98 of 1970 against the plaintiffs for renewal of the lease and the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.2434 of 1969 against the Esso Eastern Incorporation for eviction and recovery of vacant possession. Both the suits were finally decided by this Court in A.S.Nos.498 and 499 of 1970 by a common judgment dated 29.11.1974. This Court held that the lessee was entitled to extension of the lease for a further period of ten years commencing from 1.2.1969, but the lessee will have no right to seek further extension of the lease period. This Court further held that from 1.2.1969 onwards the lessee is liable to pay a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- in respect of the suit property.

6. After the aforesaid judgment, the defendant in the suit (appellant herein) acquired the said Esso Eastern Incorporation, and on that basis became the tenant of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property. The plaintiffs sent a notice dated 20.11.1978 calling upon the defendant to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit property. In the reply dated 22.12.1978, the defendant refused to vacate the suit property and claimed that they were entitled to renewal of the lease. Hence O.S.No.1941/1979, out of which the present appeal arises, was filed after the plaintiff terminated the lease by issuing proper statutory notice.

7. It appears that earlier the Esso (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1974 (Act 4 of 1974) came into force. Section 5 of the said Act states as follows:

"5. Central Government to be lessee or tenant under certain circumstances:

(1) Where any property is held in India by Esso under any lease or under any right of tenancy the Central Government shall, on and from the appointed day, be deemed to have become the lessee or tenant, as the case may be, in respect of such property as if the lease or tenancy in relation to such property had been granted to the Central Government, and thereupon all the rights under such lease or tenancy shall be deemed to have been transferred to and vested in the Central Government.

(2) On the expiry of the term of any lease or tenancy referred to in sub-section (1), such lease or tenancy shall, if so desired by the Central Government be renewed on the same terms and conditions on which the lease or tenancy was held by Esso immediately before the app