A tenant holding over after the expiry of the lease is not entitled to remain on the property without the consent of the landlord. The landlord is entitled to take possession of the property without the consent of the tenant, provided that the landlord does not use excessive force.

S. RAMACHANDRA IYER, C. J. :- This civil revision petition arises out of a decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, under S. 9 of the Specific Relief Act directing restoration of possession of the property that forms the subject matter of this litigation to the respondent. The property belongs to the Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. and in situate within the mining area. It was leased out in the year 1955 to the respondent for a year, for running a canteen. The lease was renewed thereafter every year till 31-12-1961. The Corporation then appears to have decided that a canteen within the mining area should be run only by a co-operative society for the benefit of the employees of the Corporation, and it, therefore, declined to extend the lease in favour of the respondent any further.

2. But the respondent was not prepared to reconcile himself with the termination of his agreement. He made efforts to have the lease for a further period of five years and railing in his efforts, he applied for extension of the period by one year at least. All his attempts in that direction failed completely and the Corporation by its letter dated 12-3-1962 definitely informed him that he could not get any further lease and called upon him to give vacant possession within a month from the date of the receipt of the notice. The notice calling upon the respondent to give possession purported to do so under clause 4 of the terms and conditions under which the lease was originally granted. The time granted by the notice expired by 14-4-1962. The respondent paid and the Corporation accepted rent for the property till 31-3-1962; but when the time came for delivery of possession, the respondent was not in a mood to vacate.

3. On 16-4-1962 the Township Administrator and the Security Officer went to the respondent and demanded vacant possession of the property. There are different versions about the response of the tenant, the former saying that the latter promised to give up his possession within 2 hours time and the latter saying that he definitely refused to do so. Whatever that may be, the two officers of the Corporation accompanied by the Sub-Inspector of Police went to the premises by about 11 a.m. Possession was then demanded and the respondent declined to give it According to the latter, the Sub Inspector of Police who was present then remarked "Let us see what be does. Take out the articles". The canteen was then serving its customers. The photograph which resourcefully enough the respondent had taken at that time, shows this fact. The employees of the Corporation however shifted the furniture in the canteen to a portion of the premises and took an inventory of the articles found there and secured the same in one of the room of the canteen. The respondent who was standing by, did net do anything but his manager who was in charge of the canteen, signed the inventory.

4. There was no protest then from the respondent for what had been done. five days after wards, that is, on 21-4-1962, he issued a notice through his advocate calling upon the Corporation to pay damages to him to the tune of Rs. 16230, failing which he threatened to take steps for recovery of the same. The notice also mentioned the fact that the Corporation was in possession of the moveables belonging to the responded, which was valued at Rs. 5075. Significantly enough there was no demand in his notice for restoration to possession.

5. In the meanwhile the petitioner called upon the respondent to remove the moveables from the canteen building as the same was required for use by the Corporation.

6. The respondent then instituted the suit out of which this civil revision petition arises under S. 9 of the Specific Relief Act. That was filed on 2-5-1962. But strangely enough on 25-5-1962, he removed from the premises all his articles stored up, thus giving up completely possession of the premises in which he was running the canteen. This act of the respondent is undoubt