Defendants' possession post-lease expiry was unlawful; plaintiffs entitled to mesne profits despite defendants' claims under the City Tenant's Protection Act.

JUDGMENT

This suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession and money.

2. The brief averments of the plaint is that the plaintiffs are the joint owners of the property situated at No.1, Sir Dr.C.P. Ramaswami Aiyar Road, Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018, ad-measuring an extent of 3 grounds and 1434 sq.ft or thereabouts and more fully described in the Schedule to the plaint hereunder (hereinafter referred to as 'the Said Property'). The first defendant is operating a Petrol Station in the said property. The second defendant is a retail dealer who is operating the Petrol Station on behalf of the 1st defendant.

2.1. M/s.Burmah-Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Ltd. (hereinafter in short referred to as 'Burmah Shell'), had entered into an Indenture of Lease, dated 14.05.1954 with Late Mr.C.R.Sundaram and registered as Document No.677 of 1954 in the Office of the Sub- Registrar, Mylapore and had taken the said property (a vacant land) on lease for a period of 20 years with effect from 15.09.1953. Subsequently, on 24.04.1957, a fresh Indenture of Lease was entered into between the Late Mr.C.R.Sundaram and Burmah Shell, which was registered as Document No.904 of 1957, Book No.1, Volume 289, pages 214 to 218 on 03.07.1957 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Mylapore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Said Lease Deed'). The said Lease Deed provided for lease of the aforesaid property for a period of 20 years commencing from 15.04.1957.

2.2. Clause 2 of the said Lease Deed provided that the monthly rent of Rs.240/- shall be paid on or before 10th day of the month succeeding that, for which it is payable. As per Clause 3(iii) of the said Lease Deed, the Lessee agreed to yield up (hand-over) the said property on determination of the lease. Sub-Clause 4(iv) of the said Lease Deed, provided as follows:

"that 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 herein before contained grant to it a Lease of the demised premises on the same rental for the further term of 20 years from the expiration of the said term and containing the like covenants and provisions as are herein contained with the exception of the present covenant for renewal."

2.3. In and around 1976, the Burmah-Shell was taken-over by the Central Government under the Burmah-Shell (Acquisition of Undertaking in India) Act, 1976. Subsequently, all the assets and liabilities of the said Burmah-Shell vested in the first defendant-Company. The first defendant- Company extended/renewed the Lease for a further period of 20 years with effect from 15.04.1977 and continued to pay the same rental of Rs.240/- per month. The said renewal of lease expired by efflux of time on 14.04.1997. The said lease was not renewed thereafter.

2.4. On 03.02.1997, the first defendant-Company had written to Late Mr.C.R.Sundaram, requesting renewal of lease for a further period of 20 years from 15.04.1997 on a mutually agreed rental. Mr.C.R.Sundaram having passed away on 03.11.1996, his legal heir and executor of his Estate, Mr.C.A.Sundaram, on 15.03.1997, wrote to the first defendant- Company informing the demise of Mr.C.R.Sundaram and that the joint owners of the said Property are the first and the second defendants and Mr.C.A.Sundaram. The first defendant-Company was asked to vacate and hand-over the peaceful possession of the said Property on 15.04.1997 and the 1st defendant's request for renewal was refused.

2.5. On 25.03.1997, the plaintiffs reiterated to the first defendant- Company that the lease will come to an end on 14.04.1997 and the remittance of the rent by the first defendant-Company to the account of late Mr.C.R.Sundaram would not be considered as acceptance of rent for lease of the said property and could not be taken as receipt of rent. It was also brought to the no