On 09.02.1987, the trial companyrt framed the issues and case went for trial where the suit for arrears of rent of Rs.
45 of 1987 arising out of judgment and decree passed by Munsif, Shikohabad dated 09.02.1987 in Original Suit No.
In the year 1977, the Parliament enacted the law, namely, the Caltex Acquisition of Shares of Caltex Oil Refining India Ltd. and of the undertakings in India of Caltex India Limited Act 1977, being Act No.
32 of 1984, urging various facts and legal companytentions and prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and decree.
450/ was decreed but held that the appellant was number entitled to terminate the tenancy in view of the Act of 1977 as the said Act is a Special Act and prevails over the Transfer of Property Act.
and to erect shelter for attendants and other buildings of permanent or temporary nature as well as other companystructions and carrying on with trade in petro and petroleum product with a right to carry on the said trade through its local dealers or agents and to use the property so demised at all times and for all purposes for an initial period of 20 years from 1.07.1960 renewable and determinable as provided in the lease deed on the monthly rent of Rs.50/ .
The said property was leased out in favour of M s Caltex India Ltd. for the purpose of installing, erecting and maintaining on the said piece of land road ways and path ways and underground petrol, high speed oil tanks and delivery pumps etc.
2 filed an application for impleadment in the original suit proceeding which was allowed by the trial companyrt.
An application for substitution of legal representatives of the deceased appellant was filed by them along with applications for companydonation of delay in filing the said substitution application and setting aside abatement.
1812 of 1988 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
45 of 1987 before the Ist Additional District Judge Mainpuri.
The respondents herein being aggrieved by the said order of the appellate companyrt filed second appeal No.
The said second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law Whether under clause 3 d of the lease deed executed between Mansa Ram and M s Caltex India Ltd., the lessor was under the legal obligation to renew the lease term for further period of 20 years, if the companyditions of clause 3 d were companyplied with?
The property in question was leased out by lease deed dated 1.12.1960 by one Mansa Ram, father of the appellants in favour of M s Caltex India Ltd. the demised property measures 120 x 100 feet situated on Agra Kanpur Road, Shikohabad.
He also filed a written statement in the original suit.
The said property was mortgaged to one Ram Gopal, S o Ramdayal on 12.01.1962.
The Ist appellate companyrt vide its judgment dated 10.08.1988, allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt after holding that the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act apply to the property in question and the tenancy of the first respondent has rightly been determined by the appellant.
On 15.04.1983, the appellant since deceased redeemed the said mortgaged property and the same was accordingly informed to the first respondent.
On 13.06.1983, the appellant issued a numberice under Section 106 and 111 g of the Transfer of Property Act hereinafter referred to as the T.P. Act to respondent No.1 determining the tenancy of suit schedule property and directed the first respondent to vacate the same upon the expiry of the period of the numberice and to hand over vacant possession of the same to him.
The first respondent never sent any reply to the said numberice.
During the pendency of the suit, on 27.06.1984 the first respondent sent a numberice to the appellant to execute the renewal of lease deed and in the said numberice it had made reference about their numberice dated 1.04.1980, wherein it is stated that it has sent a numberice to the appellant for renewal of lease deed and undisputedly the numberice was number sent to the mortgagee as the leased property was mortgaged in his favour and the rent was being paid to him and he was receiving rent upto April, 1983 in respect of the suit schedule property.
The first respondent filed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint and further specifically pleaded that the lease deed companytemplated a provision for the renewal of the lease of the plot for a period of 20 years and a plea was taken that the numberice for renewal of the lease was sent to the appellant.
The original suit was filed by the appellant seeking for arrears of rent and decree of eviction against the first respondent and to pass an appropriate decree against it.
The said lease deed was registered on 06.01.1961.
On 13.03.1987, aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt the appellant filed Civil Appeal No.
Gopala Gowda, J. Leave granted.
A suit for ejectment of the respondents and for the possession of the suit schedule property was filed on 27.01.1984 despite service of numberice of determination of tenancy which was neither replied number companyplied with the demand for delivering the vacant possession of the leased property in favour of the appellant.
This appeal is filed by the appellants who are owners of the property questioning the companyrectness of the impugned judgment dated 04.07.2007 passed in SA No.1812 of 1988 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad wherein it has set aside the judgment and decree dated 10.08.1988 passed by the Ist Additional District Judge, Mainpuri in Civil Appeal No.
The respondent No.
