JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.361 of 2010 dated 08.01.2021 passed by the XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 30.04.2010 made in O.S.No.711 of 2006.)

1. The case on hand demonstrates how an unscrupulous litigant continues litigating although he is aware that he is fighting a loosing battle. The poor landlord is up against a public sector undertaking which has the wherewithal to litigate continuously and the instant litigation is over 15 years old. The defendants before the Courts below had invoked the Jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the Judgment and Decree of the XVIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai in A.S.No.361 of 2010 in and by which the learned Judge confirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the III Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai in the suit O.S.No.711 of 2006. The parties are referred to in the same rank as before the Trial Court.

2. The suit revolves around the property bearing Door No.282 (Old No.1/87-L) Mount Road, Teynampet, Chennai, measuring an extent of 4 grounds 2330 Sq.ft. The plaintiff had filed the afore mentioned suit seeking a direction to the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the above property in which the defendants had been inducted as a tenant under a registered lease deed dated 08.01.1958.

Plaintiff’s case:

3. The plaintiff would submit that the property in question was originally owned by three brothers, Padmanabhan, Sethuraman and Gopinathan, who were the sons of Dr.T.Thambaiah. They had entered into a lease deed with the defendant company which was then known as M/s. Burma Shell (Oil Storage & Distribution Company) Limited. The lease was for a period of twenty years commencing from 01.01.1958.

4. The essential provisions of the lease deed were as follows:

(i) The lease would be for a period of 20 years commencing from 01.01.1958.

(ii) The rent payable would be a sum of Rs.350/- per month, to be paid on or before the 10th day of every succeeding month.

(iii) The demised premises was to be returned in the same condition as it had been leased out on the determination of the tenancy.

5. The lease was for the purpose of the defendants to carry on the business of sale of petrol and diesel. The property was handed over as a vacant site. Thereafter, the defendants had put up structure for the purpose of storing and for distributing petrol and diesel.

6. It appears that the original owners, namely, Padmanabhan and others had borrowed money from Egmore Benefit Society and had mortgaged the above property, which is herein after referred to as the suit property. The Society had exercised their rights under Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act and had brought the suit property to sale through public auction. In the auction that was conducted on 24.05.1978, one Mrs. S.Bharwani had emerged successful and a sale deed dated 24.06.1978 was executed by the Egmore Benefit Society in her favour.

7. Meanwhile, the original lease executed in favour of the defendants had determined by efflux of time on 31.12.1977. Therefore, by their letter dated 06.07.1978 the defendants had requested the new owner Mrs. Bharwani to extend the lease in respect of the suit property for a further period of 20 years. The request for extension was made on the basis of the provisions of Burma Shell Acquisition of Undertakings in India Act, hereinafter called the Act.

8. On receipt of the above letter Mrs. S.Bharwani had issued a legal notice dated 27.07.1978 requesting the defendants to vacate the suit property and expressing her refusal to extend the lease. This was followed by another legal notice dated 18.10.1978 by Mrs. S.Bharwani calling upon the defendants to vacate and handover vacant possession of the suit property by the end of November, 1978, after removing all their fixtures. The defendants through their lawyer’s notice da