The main legal point established in the judgment is that the property leased out was a composite lease and fell outside the purview of the Rent Control Act, establishing the jurisdiction of the civil court. Additionally, the appellant was not entitled to any further renewal of lease as the statutory period had expired by 2007.

1. The defendant is the appellant, who has filed this Second Appeal aggrieved over the decree and judgment dated 08.10.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nagapattinam, in A.S.No.4 of 2001, whereby the decree and judgment dated 02.08.2000 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, in O.S.No.238 of 1998 were set aside.

2. The deceased 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent herein as the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.238 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Nagapattinam, against the appellant herein (defendant therein) to quit and deliver vacant possession of the schedule mentioned property to the plaintiffs and also to direct the defendant to pay damages for use and occupation to the plaintiffs with regard to the suit property at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of legal notice dated 04.11.1995 till the date of plaint and thereafter, at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of plaint till the date of handing over the vacant possession of the schedule mentioned property to the plaintiffs.

3. The facts of the case in a nutshell are as follows:

One late Dakshinamoorthy, the husband of the 1st plaintiff and the father of the 2nd plaintiff, was the absolute owner of the land holdings measuring to an extent of 1061 sq.yards situated in Taluk Survey Nos.2849 to 2852 in Ward No.II, Block No.47, Thiruvarur Town, which is the suit property. He had constructed a petrol bunk service station in a portion of the said land holding, accepting the request made by M/s.Caltex (India) Limited, and executed a registered Deed of Lease with regard to the schedule mentioned property on 23.10.1967 in favour of M/s.Caltex (India) Limited on a rent of Rs.175/- per month. Subsequently, the Government of India promulgated an ordinance on 30.12.1976, in terms of which, a Notification was issued; under which, the said Caltex (India) Limited, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant, was taken over by the Government of India and vested in a company named M/s.Caltex Oil Refinining (India) Limited, which was subsequently amalgamated with M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, the defendant herein, by virtue of the notification dated 09.05.1978 issued by the Government of India. As per the lease deed dated 23.10.1967, the lease was for a period of ten years with an option of renewal for a further period of 5 years from the date of expiry of the original lease on a written request made by the lessee and under clause 3(G) of the lease deed, the lessee was permitted to have the benefit of three further renewals. By virtue of the terms of the lease deed, the period of lease had expired on 22.10.1977, but the defendants predecessor-in-interest, namely, M/s.Caltex (India) Limited, by a letter dated 30.08.1976 had exercised its option for the renewal for further period of five years. Since the exercise of option was not in conformithy with clause 3(G) of the Lease deed, the leasehold rights of the defendant in the schedule mentioned property have been determined by efflux of time, under law. While so, the defendant had filed a suit in O.S.No.73 of 1980 before the District Munsif Court, Thiruvarur, for a direction to renew the period of lease granted earlier, for a period of five years from 01.02.1977. In the meantime, the original owner had settled the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs by way of two registered settlement deeds dated 16.01.1981 and 17.01.1981. The defendant had filed another suit in O.S.No.275 of 1984 before the District Munsif Court, Thiruvarur against the original lessor for a direction to renew the period of lease for five years from 01.02.1982. In the meantime, the original owner died on 27.11.1985 and the said suits were dismissed by the trial court on 31.03.1988. Further, the defendant had instituted another suit in O.S.No.305 of 1988 in the Court of the District Munsif, Thiruvarur, against the plaintiffs for a direction to renew the period of lease fo