After payment of rent by tenant and acceptance by landlord a new tenancy may be created.

The only point that survives for decision is whether the second defendant is entitled to rely upon section 3 of Madras Act XI of 1964, amendment to the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1960. The brief facts of the case may be stated.

The suit property known as ‘Badshaw Buildings ‘situated in Errabalu Chetty Street and Sembudoss Street was leased out by the plaintiff to the first defendant for a period often years commencing from 1st January, 1954, under the registered deed of lease, Exhibit P-l on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,750 for the entire premises. This lease deed under clause 6 (3) empowered the lessee to assign, let or sub-let all or any portion of the demised premises as the lessee may deem fit during the currency of the lease. In pursuance of that power, the first defendant had sub-let two separate portions of the premises to 2nd and 3rd defendants. The period; of termination of the lease is 31st December, 1963, but during that last year of the lease the first defendant made some attempts with the plaintiff to obtain a renewal of the lease but without success as the plaintiff would not agree to a renewal of the lease and insisted upon having possession of the premises after the expiry of the ten year period. In view of this insistence of the plaintiff to obtain possession on the termination of the lease, the first defendant had duly informed defendants 2 and 3, the sub-lessees, that on the expiry of the lease by 31st December, 1963 they must vacate and hand over possession. While matters stood thus, the plaintiff wrote to the first defendant that the lease would stand terminated and determined by 31st December, 1963, that vacant possession of the premises should be handed over to the Plaintiff on or before 1st January, 1964, and that in default the plaintiff would be entitled to damages for use and occupation of the building at the rate of Re. 1 per square foot per mensem. Thereupon the first defendant wrote to the plaintiff, Exhibit P-6 dated 2nd December, 1963 informing the plaintiff that the first defendant had recently purchased a building in Sydenhams Road, Periamet, that some repairs had to be carried out in that building, and that within a period of four months they would effect the repairs and shift to the new building after handing over possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff. In that letter the first defendant wanted the lease to continue till 1st April, 1964 for a period of three months on the same terms as to rent as in the lease deed Exhibit P-l. The plaintiff did not agree to this suggestion and insisted upon having possession of the premises on 1st January, 1964 and in default damages for use and occupation at the rate of Re. 1 per square foot per mensem. Under their reply, Exhibit P-8, dated 27th December, 1965 the first defendant reiterated the same attitude, insisting upon an extension of the lease till the first defendant was in a position to shift to its new building. It is unnecessary to refer to the further correspondence between the parties, and it is sufficient to mention that under Exhibit P-9, the letter sent by the plaintiff to the Counsel for the first defendant on 2nd January, 1964 the plaintiff still adhered to his decision. The first defendant ultimately vacated that portion of the premises in its occupation on 30th April, 1964 and handed over the keys thereof to the plaintiff. As defendants 2 and 3 however refused to vacate, the plaintiff was told that he may take symbolical possession of the portion in the occupation of defendants 2 and 3, and that necessary letters of attornment would be obtained from them. Exhibit P-l5, the letter written by the first defendant to the plaintiff on 30th April, 1964 shows that on that day, the first defendant sent a cheque for Rs. 1,750 being the rent for the month of April, 1964, and also sent the keys of the locks in respect of the portion which was in the occupation of the first defendant. On the same day the plaintiff