K. Govindarajan, J.
1. The first respondent in both the second appeals filed the suits in O.S.Nos. 390 of 391 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruthuraipoondi against the appellant and the second respondent for recovery of possession and for damages for use and occupation of the suit properties. Under the registered lease deed dated 24.4.1947 the site was leased out to the then Burmah Shell Company to run their retail outlet. Similarly, with respect to another portion of the land a separate lease arrangement was entered into by the said company on 9.3.1951 by a registered document. According to the plaintiff/first respondent, the period of lease was fixed till 14.3.1977. The appellant/ first defendant had become the successor-in-interest of the said Burmah Shell Company and had duly attorned to the plaintiff the said leases and they have been paying the rent. The plaintiff in the year 1991 requested the appellant to give vacant possession of the property. The appellant took a stand in the reply dated 8.3.1991 that it is having a right of renewal for similar period. But the said right was never acted upon. So a notice was caused through his Advocate on 21.3.1994 which was replied by the appellant on 26.4.1994 reiterating the abovesaid stand. So, the first respondent filed the abovesaid suits. The appellant filed the written statement stating that in view of Act 2 of 1976 the appellant is entitled for renewal for further period of 30 years from 15.5.1977 and so the suits are not maintainable. The trial court accepting the case of the appellant/first defendant dismissed the suits. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed appeals in A.S.Nos. 136 and 137 of 1997 on the file of the District Court, Nagapattinam. The lower appellate court found that the lease was not renewed and so the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit properties. Still aggrieved, the appellant/first defendant has filed the above second appeals.
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that in view of Section 11 of Act 2 of 1976 the lower appellate Court is not correct in saying that in view of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, unless the lease is renewed by way of registered document, the plaintiff/first respondent cannot claim any right in the suit properties. He has further submitted that though the appellant offered for renewal, the first respondent did not take any steps to renew the same, and in such circumstances if the stand taken by the plaintiff is accepted, the object of the said Act itself would be defeated. I am not able to accept the said submission. If there is a clause for renewal in the lease deed, it has to be taken as it gives the option for renewal, and it cannot be said that by exercising the option, it has to be construed that the lease was renewed. I seek support for this conclusion from the decision rendered by Ismail, J., as he then was, in R. Mehta v. Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Co. : AIR1976Mad194 . Admittedly, in this case, the renewal was not effected.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has sought to rely on Section 11 of the Act 2 of 1976 in support of is submission that Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be pressed into service. The provisions of the Act 2 of 1976 do not contemplate any deeming provision, regarding renewal as held by the courts after construing the scope of Section 5 of the Act 2 of 1976. It is only an option given to the lessee. So, in the absence of any deeming provision regarding renewal, Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be construed as inconsistent to Section 5 of the Act 2 of 1976.
4. While dealing with similar objection raised, Jagadeesan, J., in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Madras v. Ravi : (1997)1MLJ287 , has held as follows:
However, the learned Counsel did not point out any inconsistency between Section 5(2) of the said Act of 1976 and Section 107 of Transfer of Property Act. Since this point has been raised it has become necessary to consider as to whether Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act is inconsistent with 5(2) of the said Act 2 of 1976 Section 5 of Act 2 of 1976 reads as follows:
5(1) Where any property is held in India by Burmah Shell under any lease or under any right of tenancy, the Central Government shall, on and from the appointed day, be deemed to have become the lessee or tenant, as the case may be, in respect of such property as if the lease or tenancy in relation to such property had been granted to the Central Government, and thereupon all the rights under such lease or tenancy shall be deemed to have been transferred to, and vested in the Central Government.
(2) On the expiry of the term of any lease or tenancy referred to in Sub-section (1), such lease or tenancy Government be renewed on the same terms and conditions on which the lease or tenancy was held by Burmah Shell immediately before the appointed day.
Section 5(1) of the said Act makes it clear that wherever any property is held by Burmah Shell under any lease of tenancy in respect of such property the Central Government shall be deemed to have become; the lessee or tenant; as the case may be, in respect of such property and such rights shall also be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the Central Government. Section 5(2) of the said Act enables the Central Government to get the lease renewed, if so desired Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act runs as follows:
Lease how made: A lease of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent, can be made only by a registered instrument. All other leases of immovable property may be made either by a registered instrument or by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession. Where a lease of immovable property is made by a registered instrument, such instrument, or, where there are more instruments than one, each such instrument shall be executed by both the lessor and, the lessee;
Provided that the State Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that leases of immovable-property, other than leases from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent, or any class of such leases, may be made by unregistered instrument or by oral agreement without delivery of possession.
As per this provision, where lease of immovable property is made under an instrument, such instrument shall be executed by both lessor and lessee. The Registration Act contemplates the compulsory registration of lease deed where the lease exceeds more than one year. Hence it is incumbent on part of Central Government to get the lease deed registered after the same was executed by both lessor and lessee. Only if the contention of the counsel that Section 5(2) of the Burma Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act contemplates an automatic renewal of lease in favour of Central Government, then the other formalities not required as held in the case reported in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Aswinraj : AIR1996Mad285 . Section 5 (2) of the Act does not contemplates any automatic renewal. When Section 5(2) of Act. 2 of 1976 does not contemplate any automatic renewal, then Section 107 of the Transfer of Property, Act cannot be said to be inconsistent with the said provision. Hence, Section 11 of Act 2 of 1976 is not attracted on the facts of the present case.
In view of the above, the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant cannot be countenanced. In this case, as stated earlier, even after receiving the notice, terminating the lease and demanding possession, the appellant did not take any steps to have the lease renewed.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the lower appellate court is correct in decreeing the, suit. Hence, I do not find any merits in these second appeals. They are dismissed accordingly. No costs. Consequently the connected C.M.Ps. are closed.