A tenant has no right to remain in possession of the demised property after the expiry of the lease period.

K.A. Swami, CJ.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is preferred against the judgment dated 211. 1994 passed by the learned single Judge in A.S.No.82 of 1983 and also C.M.P.Nos. 2850 and 4344 of 1994.

2. Learned single Judge allowing the C.M.Ps., has also allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the Trial Court for fresh disposal in the following terms:-

“In the result, C.M.P.Nos.2850 and 4344 of 1994 are allowed. The appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and the matter is remitted to the trial Court for fresh disposal according to law, after the plaint is amended as prayed for in CMP No.2850 of 1994. The plaintiff is directed to carry out the amendment in the trial Court. The trial Court shall give an opportunity to the defendant to file additional written statement in the light of the amendment made in the plaint and decide the suit afresh within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order after framing appropriate issue and giving an opportunity to both sides to let in further evidence in respect of their respective claims. In the circumstances, there is no order as to costs. Court-fees paid on the memorandum of appeal shall be refunded to the appellant.”

3. The respondent in the L.P.A. who is the plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.1304 of 1979 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, sought for the following reliefs:-@BT-1-IND = “(a) setting aside the document of lease dated 8. 74 entered into between the plaintiff’s mother L.Kamalam and Caltex India Ltd.

“(a) (i) declaring that the defendant is not entitled to ask for a renewal of the lease term for any period as contemplated under Sec.7(3) of Control Act 17 of 1977 (amended as per order in I.A.No.559 of 1981 dated 17. 91)

.(b) directing the defendant to hand over vacant possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff;

.(c) directing the defendant to pay plaintiff future mesne profits or damages for use and occupation at a rate to be determined by this Hon’ble Court from July, 1979 till delivery of possession;

.(d) directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff the costs of this suit; and

.(e) granting plaintiff such further or other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

Various defences were put forth by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited - the defendant. The Trial Court raised the following issues

1. Whether the lease deed dated 8. 1974 is not binding on the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint?

2. Whether the relief of setting aside the lease deed dated 8. 1974 is barred by limitation?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of setting aside the lease deed dated 8. 1974 as prayed for in para 14a of the plaint?

4. Whether the defendant is entitled to have the lease renewed for a further period on the same terms under Section 7, 3 of Central Act XVII of 1977 and is so for what period and whether such a statutory right without taking any steps by the defendant to register a lease deed can be put as a defence to the plaintiff’s action for possession?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession as prayed for in para 14b of the plaint?

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to future mesne profits from July, 1979 till delivery of possession and if so at what rate?

7. To what relief if any the plaintiff is entitled, Additional Issues framed on 9. 1981.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed for in para -14a(i) of the plaint?

2. Whether the defendant had not complied with the requirements of Section 7 (3) of Central Act 17 of 1977 and whether the defendant had no vested right and option to have the lease renewed as alleged in the plaint? Additional Issue framed, on 21. 1982

1. Whether the defendant is entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act 3 of 1922?” Ultimately, in the light of the findings recorded in