1. Challenge is made in this appeal to the Judgment and Decree dated 17.07.2008 and made in O.S.No.5000 of 2007, on the file of the learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The defendant in the suit is the appellant herein, whereas the plaintiffs are the respondents.

3. For easy reference, the original legal character of the parties to the suit may not be changed and be it as it is in the suit.

4. The facts, which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as under:

4.1. The suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant seeking the following remedies:

i. to quite and deliver vacant possession of the piece, part and parcel of the plot of land to an extent of 8995 sq.ft., situated in Survey No.327/1, Arcot Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai-24, after removing the installations, fixtures, fittings, super structure and buildings thereon; ii. to pay a sum of Rs.4,80,000/-being the past damages payable for the use and occupation of the suit property, together with the interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the said sum of Rs.4,80,000/- from the date of the plaint till the date of realisation;

iii. to pay future damages at the rate of Rs.22,000/-per month from 01.07.2007 till the date of delivery of possession of the suit property; and

iv. to pay costs of the suit.

4.2 The first plaintiff is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It was formed with an object of establishing educational institution. The second plaintiff institution was formed by the first plaintiff for the said purpose.

4.3. The suit property measuring an extent of 8995 sq.ft., is situated in Survey No.327/1 (part), Arcot Road, Kodambakkam. It forms part and parcel of larger extent of land owned by the first plaintiff. The defendant is the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, a Government of India undertaking. The had approached the plaintiffs for leasing out the suit property for the purpose of erecting petrol/high speed diesel oil pumps and also selling petroleum products on monthly rental basis. Since the plaintiffs had also agreed to let out the suit property to the defendant, a lease agreement (Ex.A2) was entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendant on 18.07.1972 and the same was also duly registered.

4.4. The tenancy is according to English calendar month as per the clauses contained in the lease agreement dated 18.07.1972. The defendant was allowed to occupy the suit property for a period of twenty years commencing from 01.06.1972. The monthly rent is payable at the rate of Rs.700 for the first five years, Rs.950/-for the next five years and Rs.1,200/- for the next ten years payable on or before fifth day of succeeding month.

4.5. The defendant has been running the petrol bunk through its dealer, Vega Service Station. The lease period as agreed between the parties had expired as early as on 31.05.1992. Hence, the second plaintiff through their letter dated 25.02.1992 (Ex.A4) had expressed their inability to renew the lease for further period and therefore asked the defendant to surrender vacant possession of the suit property. Since the defendant had refused to do so, the plaintiffs had sent notices through their counsel dated 23.03.1993 (Ex.A7) and 29.01.1998 (Ex.A9) demanding to quite and deliver vacant possession of the suit property.

4.6. Even for these two notices, the defendant had not responded. The defendant is not entitled to remain in possession of the suit property after the expiry of the lease period and that too after the termination of the lease by the plaintiffs mutaully. The defendant’s possession of the suit property after the expiry of the lease period is illegal and in any event they are trespassers with effect from 31.05.2002 in the eyes of law.

4.7. The defendant by wrongly interpreting the clauses contained in the lease deed dated 18.07.1972 has claimed automatic renewal of lease after 31.05.1992 and has failed to deliver vacant possession of the suit property.