Exercise of option for renewal of lease held sufficient.

1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No. 569 of 1979 on the filed of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, who have succeeded before the trial court and lost before the first appellate court are the appellants in this second appeal.

2. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 7. 1997 made in A.S.No. 44 of 1997 in reversing the judgment and decree dated 20th September, 1996 made in O.S.No. 569 of 1979 on the file of the trial court. At the time of admission, the following two substantial questions of law were framed by this Court:-

.(i) Whether the lease granted in favour of the 1st respondent stood terminated on the expiry of the period of the lease as stated in the lawyers notice Ex.A.7 dated 110. 1978 whether on such termination, the appellants became entitled to the reliefs claimed in the suit?

.(ii) Assuming without conceding that there was a valid renewal of the lease as claimed by the 1st respondent the expiry of the said renewal period of lease during the pendency of the suit being a subsequent event, the lower Appellate Court should have under law granted the reliefs claimed by the appellants in the suit without requiring them to seek the reliefs in fresh legal proceedings?

3. Heard Mr.S. Gopalaratnam, Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. P. Veeraraghavan, counsel on record for the appellants and Mr.A.L. Somayaji, Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.K. Ramani counsel on record for respondents.

4. At the request of the learned counsel appearing for either side a date was fixed for final disposal of the second appeal and accordingly the second appeal was listed for final disposal.

5. The factual matrix requires to be summed up for the disposal of this second appeal:

.(a) The plaintiffs 1 to 3 instituted the suit O.S.No. 569 of 1979 against the defendants 1 and 2 praying for judgment and decree directing the defendants to put the plaintiff in

.vacant possession of the schedule II mentioned land after removing all the structures thereon at the cost of the defendants; directing the first defendant to pay to the plaintiffs damages for use and occupation of the II mentioned land at the rate of Rs, 1500 per mensem from 1. 1979 till date of delivery of vacant possession of the suit land, besides the Corporation tax payable by the said defendants for the said land and for costs and other incidental reliefs.

.(b) According to the plaintiffs, the suit II schedule property was originally owned by Hindu Joint Family consisting of the plaintiffs and their mother Sivakamu Sundari, that the II schedule property forms part of Schedule-I, that the second schedule property was taken on lease by M/s. Esso Standard Eastern Inc., from the first plaintiff’s mother for a period often years from 1. 1969 to 312. 1978 on a monthly rent of Rs. 300 for the first five years and Rs. 350 for the next five years as per the lease dee d dated 8th October, 1969, that subsequently the said Esso Standard Eastern Inc., referred as Esso for brevity, agreed to pay the property tax payable in respect of Schedule II to the Corporation from the date of the lease and it is being paid by Esso, that consequent to Esso (Acquisitions of Undertakings in India) Act, 1974, all the assets and liabilities of the said Esso including interest in the lease deed dated 10. 1969 mentioned in Schedule-II vested in the said defendant, that the said defendant had attorned the tenancy of the schedule II in favour of the first plaintiff’s mother and was paying the rents to her as well as tax payable thereon to the Corporation; that the first schedule property was partitioned in terms of the partition deed dated 26. 1976 that as per the partition, the second schedule was divided by metes and bounds and had been allotted to plaintiffs share each being entitled to a specific portion therein and the plaintiffs are the present owners of the said land, and that aft er the said part