Judgment :- The Chief Justice: This Second Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and decree of the learned IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, dated 23.9.2003 passed in A.S.No.135 of 2000. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. We are deeply distressed by the facts of this case. The appellant is a Public Sector Corporation and therefore was expected to behave like an ideal person, but in this case we find that it has been illegally retaining possession of the property in dispute for 16 years after 1989 when its lease had admittedly come to an end. These days, unfortunately, some people are illegally holding on to the property over which they have no right to continue in possession once the period of the lease or grant ceases to exist. This is most improper and cannot be appreciated by this Court, particularly since the appellant which is a Public Sector Undertaking must know how to respect the law. 4. The suit, from which this appeal has arisen, was filed by the respondents for recovery of vacant possession of the property in dispute and for damages till the date of handing over vacant possession. 5. The facts of the case are that the suit property was let out by the plaintiffs/respondents to the Standard Vacuum Oil company by lease deed dated 16.1.1959 for a period of 10 years. Before the expiry of the lease period, the Standard Vacuum Oil Company was renamed as Esso Eastern Incorporation. The Esso Eastern Incorporation requested the plaintiffs to extend the tenancy by another ten years which was refused by the plaintiffs as they required the suit property for their own use and occupation. The said Esso Eastern Incorporation filed O.S.No.98 of 1970 against the plaintiffs for renewal of the lease and the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.2434 of 1969 against the Esso Eastern Incorporation for eviction and recovery of vacant possession. Both the suits were finally decided by this Court in A.S.Nos.498 and 499 of 1970 by a common judgment dated 29.11.1974. This Court held that the lessee was entitled to extension of the lease for a further period of ten years commencing from 1.2.1969, but the lessee will have no right to seek further extension of the lease period. Both the suits were finally decided by this Court in A.S.Nos.498 and 499 of 1970 by a common judgment dated 29.11.1974. This Court held that the lessee was entitled to extension of the lease for a further period of ten years commencing from 1.2.1969, but the lessee will have no right to seek further extension of the lease period. This Court further held that from 1.2.1969 onwards the lessee is liable to pay a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- in respect of the suit property. 6. After the aforesaid judgment, the defendant in the suit (appellant herein) acquired the said Esso Eastern Incorporation, and on that basis became the tenant of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property. The plaintiffs sent a notice dated 20.11.1978 calling upon the defendant to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit property. In the reply dated 22.12.1978, the defendant refused to vacate the suit property and claimed that they were entitled to renewal of the lease. Hence O.S.No.1941/1979, out of which the present appeal arises, was filed after the plaintiff terminated the lease by issuing proper statutory notice. 7. It appears that earlier the Esso (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1974 (Act 4 of 1974) came into force. Section 5 of the said Act states as follows: "5. Central Government to be lessee or tenant under certain circumstances: (1) Where any property is held in India by Esso 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 shall, if so desired by the Central Government be renewed on the same terms and conditions on which the lease or tenancy was held by Esso immediately before the appointed day." 8. (2) On the expiry of the term of any lease or tenancy referred to in sub-section (1), such lease or tenancy shall, if so desired by the Central Government be renewed on the same terms and conditions on which the lease or tenancy was held by Esso immediately before the appointed day." 8. In Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Dolly Das ( (1999) 4 SCC 450 ), the Supreme Court held that under Section 5(2) of the aforesaid Act there is a right of only one renewal for a similar term on the same terms and conditions. In the present case, the earlier renewal was for ten years from 1969 to 1979. Hence the appellant herein had the right of only one renewal i.e. from 1979-1989 on the same terms and conditions in view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court. 9. One would have expected that after 1989 the appellant herein like an honourable person would have vacated the suit property since its leasehold right ceased to exist after 1989. However, unfortunately, in our country, what is often seen is that people continue to remain in illegal possession of a property even for several years after their right to occupy the same ceased to exist. This practice has now become rampant in our country and the time has come when it must be curbed. An honourable person should vacate the property over which his lease or licence has expired and hand over possession of the same on the date of expiry of the lease or licence to the landlord/owner unless there is a fresh mutual agreement which permits him to continue in possession. It is to be noted with deep distress that the appellant which is a well known Public Sector Undertaking has blatantly violated the law and continued in possession of the suit property for 16 years beyond the term of its lease. We are indeed very sad to note that a Public Sector Undertaking has behaved in this manner. In this country the rule of law prevails and Public Sector Undertakings are subordinate to law and not above the law. In this case, the appellant which is a Public Sector Undertaking has taken the law into its own hands, which was most unfortunate and unjustified. 10. In this country the rule of law prevails and Public Sector Undertakings are subordinate to law and not above the law. In this case, the appellant which is a Public Sector Undertaking has taken the law into its own hands, which was most unfortunate and unjustified. 10. It may be noted that the judgment of the Supreme Court which we have referred to above also relates to the very same Public Sector Undertaking viz. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited which is the appellant before us. Surely, the appellant had knowledge of the law and cannot claim ignorance of law. 11. There is no substantial question of law involved in this case. Moreover we find that the judgment of the court below is eminently just and proper and in accordance with law. We find no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed. No costs. C.M.P.No.3701 of 2005 is dismissed. 12. However, on the facts of the case, the appellant is granted two months time from today to vacate. On the expiry of two months from today, the appellant, unless it has vacated the property earlier, shall hand over vacant and peaceful possession to the respondents, and on failure to comply with the above direction the appellant will be evicted with police force.