Hon’ble Shiv Charan, J.—This second appeal has been instituted against the judgment and decree dated 31.3.1998 passed by the then Xth Addl. District Judge, Meerut in C.A. No. 1 of 1995 (Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Smt. Phool Wati and others). By the impugned judgment and decree the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal alongwith cross-objection filed by respondents. And the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 16.12.1994 was confirmed. Although the present appeal has not been admitted till date for hearing after formulating the substantial question of law. But on 19.5.1998 stay was granted by this Court to the effect that execution of the impugned judgment and decree of the two Courts below shall remain stayed. Although application was moved on behalf of the respondent for vacating the stay order granted in this case. Hence under these circumstance both the Counsels for the parties in joint statement stated that this appeal be finally disposed of. Under these circumstance the above mentioned appeal shall be disposed of finally after considering the substantial question of law involved in this case.

2. The original record of the Courts below has also been summoned and is available for perusal and from the perusal of the original record it is evident that respondents/plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 1221 of 1986 (Smt. Phoolwati and others v. M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.) in the Court of City Munsif, Meerut for recovery of possession of the property in dispute fully described at the foot of the plaint alongwith recovery of arrears of rent and expenses for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month. It has also been stated in the plaint that the plaintiffs respondents are the owner and landlord of the property measuring 100x100 feet situated at Hapur, Bulandshahr Road. That this land was let out by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs to M/s Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Ltd., the predecessor-in-interest of the present defendant/appellant i.e. M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. for a period of 15 years at a monthly rent of Rs. 95 by a registered lease deed dated 15.7.1957. And in view of clause No. 8 of the lease deed it was also stipulated that if the lessees shall be desirous of renewing this present lease then such desire shall be expressed to the lessor not less than three months’ notice in writing prior to the expiration. The lease was for a fixed period of 15 years w.e.f. 23.8.1956. And the lease thus expired by efflux of time on 22.8.1971. Notwithstanding the renewal clause the said lease deed was never expressly renewed. But the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant continued to hold and enjoy the said plot on the same terms and conditions contained in the lease deed dated 15.7.1957. Hence after expiration of the period of lease the tenancy was created holding over in view of Section 116 of the T.P. Act. A letter was written by the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant in the year 1971 expressing the desire for renewal of the licence with a specific condition that the lease deed shall be renewed contain a clause that a fresh lease deed shall also be renewed after expiry of 15 years. Whereas it was against the spirit of lease deed dated 15.7.1957. That the defendant corporation without knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs sub let the property to Mr. Chand Kapoor who is in actual physical possession of the property in dispute. But he is unauthorised occupant. A notice was served on 4.10.1986, inter alia, of termination of tenancy. But inspite of receipt of the notice and after expiry of 30 days the property in dispute was not vacated. That in any case the agreement in favour of the defendant Corporation has expired firstly by efflux of time and secondly by the notice. That the plaintiffs is also entitled for damages at the rate of Rs. 200/- per day.

3. The suit was contested by the appellant/defendant and written statement was