1. Plaintiffs in OS. 1316 of 1986, on the file of First Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, are the appellants. After the filing of this Second Appeal, second respondent (father of appellants) died, and therefore, appellants 4 and 5 have been impleaded.

2. The suit filed by plaintiffs was to direct the first defendant to deliver vacant possession of the land described in the schedule to them and on behalf of the second defendant, after removing the superstructures put up by the first defendant, for a declaration that the first defendant is not entitled to any renewal of the lease; to direct the first defendant to pay Rs. 750/- for rent upto 31-12-1982 and Rs. 250/- for damages for use and occupation from 1-1-1983 to the date of filing of the suit; for direction to the first defendant to pay damages for use and occupation from the date of suit till date of delivery of possession of the Schedule mentioned property at Rs. 250/- per ground per month; and for other consequential reliefs.

3. In the plaint, it is alleged that the suit property belonged to the paternal great grand father of plaintiffs late A. Ramalingam Pillai. On the death of Ramalingam Pillai, his son Shanmugham was in management of the property as well as other properties of the joint family. Shanmugnam, grandfather of plaintiffs leased out a portion of the land to Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited as per Ex. B-9 dated 9-4-1958(lease deed). Though the lease deed is dated 9-4-1958, the lease commenced from 1-1-1958, the lessee having agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- and the term of lease was fixed as 20 years. It was specifically provided under the lease deed that the lease was granted for the purpose of erecting one or more pumps together with tanks and fittings and such other buildings as the lessee may choose to erect for the storage of petrol, High Speed Diesel Oil and any other petroleum products and for carrying on business. There was also a clause in the lease deed which reads thus:— “The lessor will on the written request of the lessee made one month before the expiration of the term hereby created and if there shall not be at the time of such request any existing breach or non-observance of any of the covenants on the part of the lessee hereinbefore contained grant to it a lease of the demised premises on the rental of Rs. 250/- per month for the term of 20 years from the expiration of the said term and containing the like covenant and provisions as are herein contained with the exception of the present covenant for renewal.”

4. When the term was about to expire, the first defendant wrote to plaintiffs grandfather on 29-3-1977 (Ex. A-3) indicating its intention to renew the lease for a further period of 20 years at the enhanced rental of Rs. 250/- per mensem, and calling upon the appellants grandfather to execute a lease deed. A reminder was also sent as evidenced by Ex. B-13 dated 5-12-1977, for which appellants grandfather replied, evidenced by Ex. B-2 dated 23-12-1977, that in view of the partition in the family, the property has been allotted towards the share of the father of appellants (who has been impleaded as second defendant in the suit). On the same date of Ex. B-2, second defendant wrote to the first defendant that he is demanding an increase in the rent at the rate of Rs. 600/-permensem in view of the increase in urban land tax, and he also agrees to renew the same, of course, subject to the payment of enhanced rent. Thereafter, as per Ex. B-12, on 7-3-1978, first defendant again reminded the appellants father about the renewal of lease. For sometime, i.e. , for more than a year, there was no correspondence between the parties. But, on 19-12-1980 as evidenced by Ex. B-3, deceased second defendant asked the first defendant to send a draft lease deed for a period from 1-1-1978 in renewal of the lease deed dated 9-4-1958. In that letter evidenced by Ex. B-3, he asked the first defendant t