Judgment : (V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.) This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.P.C.” for short) is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree, dated 06.07.2021 in A.S.No.25 of 2017, on the file of the X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle, confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 07.09.2017 in O.S.No.519 of 2003, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalle. 2. The appellant herein is the 1 st defendant and the 1 st respondent herein is the plaintiff and the respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein are defendant Nos.2 to 5 in O.S.No.519 of 2003, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalle. During the pendency of the appeal, the 1 st respondent died and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondent Nos.6 to 11. 3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.519 of 2003, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalle, with a prayer for eviction of the 1 st defendant company from the schedule property and for costs of the suit. 4. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalle, decreed the suit. Felt aggrieved of the same, the 1 st defendant in the above said suit filed A.S.No.25 of 2017, on the file of the X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle. The learned X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle, dismissed the appeal by confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the 1 st defendant in the suit approached this Court by way of second appeal. 5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit. 6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.519 of 2003, is as follows: The plaint schedule property is an extent of 48,000 sq. feet of site/land situated in Town Survey No.1546 of Anakapalle Municipality, wherein the 1 st defendant is running a petrol bunk through its agent i.e., 2 nd defendant. By virtue of a partition deed in Doc.No.18680/47, the schedule property fell to the share of Yagneswara Chainulu and China Kasipathi Chainulu, who are brothers. Impelled by custom, Yegneswara Chainulu got the western side of it and China Kasipathi Chainulu got the remaining, under an oral agreement. By virtue of a partition deed in Doc.No.18680/47, the schedule property fell to the share of Yagneswara Chainulu and China Kasipathi Chainulu, who are brothers. Impelled by custom, Yegneswara Chainulu got the western side of it and China Kasipathi Chainulu got the remaining, under an oral agreement. Later, 1 st defendant got issued a notice, dated 17.09.1993 to the plaintiff and others for renewal of the lease for another period of 30 years. The said notice is not valid and binding on them. By the said letter, 1 st defendant company exercised its option for renewal of lease for a further period of 30 years from 01.04.1994. The plaintiff refused to receive the said letter. The plaintiff and late Eswarudu asked 1 st defendant company to vacate the said premises and handover the same to them. The said exercise of right to renewal is only discretionary and not mandatory. The 1 st defendant company filed O.S.No.273 of 1997 against the plaintiff and others for specific performance of the said covenant in the agreement, dated 22.09.1964. Since the said lease is determined as per clause IV of para 2 of the lease deed, dated 22.09.1964, the 1 st defendant is wrongfully continuing in the said property, even without paying or depositing the agreed rent of Rs.300/- per quarter from 01.04.1994 till date. Their continuation in possession of the said property amounts to unlawful occupation and trespass for which the 1 st defendant is liable to pay damages. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs claimed. 7. The 1 st defendant filed written statement before the trial Court denying the material averments in the plaint and contended as follows: Originally the schedule property belonged to one Vedula China Kasipathi Chainulu, Yegneswara Chainulu and Eswarudu. On 07.09.1964 they entered into a lease agreement over the schedule property with Burma Shell Oil Storage Distribution Co., Ltd., for a period of 30 years commencing from 01.04.1964 at a quarterly rent of Rs.300/-. The said lease deed was duly registered at the office of Sub-Registrar, Anakapalle. Later, Burma Shell Company constructed various structures on the demised premises and carried on the business of petroleum products to it. The said lease deed was duly registered at the office of Sub-Registrar, Anakapalle. Later, Burma Shell Company constructed various structures on the demised premises and carried on the business of petroleum products to it. However, on 24.01.1976 the right, title and interest of the said company, in respect of its undertakings in India were taken over and vested in the Central Government under the provisions of the Burma Shell (Acquisition of undertakings in India) Act, 1976. The said lease deed dated 07.09.1964 inter alia contained the provision in clause 3 (iii) that “the lessor will on the written request of the lessee made one month before expiration of the term hereby created grant to it a lease of the demised premises on the same rental for the further term of 30 years from the expiration of the said term and continuing like covenants and provisions and are herein contained with the exception of the present covenant for renewal. As the plaintiff refused to accept the rental cheque tendered by the 1 st defendant, dated 01.04.1994, the 1 st defendant addressed a letter dated 27.07.1994 informing the plaintiff and others that they have refused to receive the rent and that 1 st defendant is prepared to send the entire rent as and when the same is demanded by them or as and when they expressed their willingness to receive the same. The 1 st defendant is entitled to have renewal of the lease for a period of 30 years. The 1 st defendant has always been ready and willing to perform the terms and conditions mentioned in the said lease deed. The 1 st defendant is willing to pay the entire accumulated rental as stated above. The 1 st defendant is entitled to renew the lease for a further period of 30 years. Even as per Act 11 of 1976, 1 st defendant has got the right to continue the lease for a further period covered by the lease deed. 8. The 2 nd defendant filed written statement contending that the 2 nd defendant is a dealer of the 1 st defendant at Anakapalle and as such 2 nd defendant is managing the plaint schedule property with utmost care. 8. The 2 nd defendant filed written statement contending that the 2 nd defendant is a dealer of the 1 st defendant at Anakapalle and as such 2 nd defendant is managing the plaint schedule property with utmost care. When the suit is valued at yearly rent of Rs.1,200/-, the plaintiff cannot claim any damages more than that amount since 1 st defendant has the right to do business for another 30 years even as per the terms and conditions of the lease deed, the suit is pre-mature and is not maintainable. The plaintiff has no right to claim any relief against the 2 nd defendant. 9. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned trial Judge, framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the suit is pre-mature one? (2) Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? (3) Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit? (4) Whether there is no lessor and lessee between plaintiff and defendant? (5) Whether suit is not maintainable under law? (6) Whether plaintiff is entitled for reliefs as prayed for? (7) To what relief? 10. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 to D.W.3 were examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.5 were marked. 11. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalle, after conclusion of trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit. Felt aggrieved thereby, the 1 st defendant filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.25 of 2017, on the file of the X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle, wherein, the following points came up for consideration: 1) Whether the defendant Nos.1 and 2 committed default in payment of rents as contended by the plaintiff? 2) Whether the appellant/1 st defendant is entitled for renewal of lease for another period of 30 years as contended by it? 3) Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the judgment and decree of the trial Court and if so, to what extent? 12. The learned X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle i.e., the first appellate Judge, after hearing the arguments, answered the points, as above, against the 1 st defendant and dismissed the appeal filed by the 1 st defendant. 12. The learned X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle i.e., the first appellate Judge, after hearing the arguments, answered the points, as above, against the 1 st defendant and dismissed the appeal filed by the 1 st defendant. Felt aggrieved of the same, the 1 st defendant in O.S.No.519 of 2003 filed the present second appeal before this Court. 13. On hearing both side counsels at the time of admission of the appeal, on 30.09.2021 , this Court framed the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the Courts below acted legally in not considering the effect of clause 3 (iii) of the lease agreement which obligates the owner to renew the lease for a further period of 30 years? (2) Whether the interpretation placed by the courts below with regard to the provisions of Sec.5(2) of the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1976 is legally sustainable? (3) Whether the courts below acted legally in relying on the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act ignoring that the provisions of the Special Act i.e., Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1976 is applicable? 14. Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel on behalf of Sri V.V. Satish, learned counsel for the appellant and heard Sri K. Chidambaram, learned senior counsel on behalf of Sri Rajesh Matcha, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 6 to 11. 15. In a second appeal under Section 100 of CPC the High Court cannot substantiate its own opinion for that of First Appellate Court unless the Court finds that the conclusions drawn by both the Courts are erroneous being, (i) contrary to the mandatory provisions of the applicable law or (ii) contrary to the law as pronounced by the Apex Court or (iii) based on inadmissible or no evidence. 16. 16. The jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeal under Section 100 of CPC is strictly confined to the case involving substantial question of law and while deciding the second appeal under Section 100 of CPC, it is not permissible for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence on record and interfere with the findings recorded by both the Courts below and if the First Appellate Court has exercises in its discretion in a judicial manner, its decision cannot be recorded as suffering from an error either of law or of procedure requiring interference in a second appeal. 17. The undisputed facts are the period of 30 years lease is expired by 31.03.1994 and the appellant has been continuing in the schedule property since 61 years as a tenant as on today on a meager quarterly rent of Rs.300/- for every four months. It is also an admitted fact that the rent has not been paid for two decades, even a meager quarterly rent of Rs.300/- for every four months has not been paid for two decades and that the appellant continued in the schedule premises and subsequently during the pendency of the suit proceedings after 20 years of default of payment of rents, the appellant filed a petition to deposit the rents in Civil Court. It is the case of the appellant that they offered rent to one of the lessors by name Eswarudu but he refused to receive the same. In such a case, the appellant has to take necessary steps to deposit the rents into the bank account of the land-lord and the appellant has to issue a legal notice to the said Eswarudu to inform his bank account number or the appellant has to file a petition before the civil Court for deposit of rents. Admittedly, the appellant has not been offered rent to other lessors. The appellant being the Central Government undertaking kept quiet for a period of 20 years even not paying single paise towards admitted rents for two decades. Though a suit for specific performance has been filed in the year 1997, the appellant has not deposited the rents. Without any further extension of lease deed, the appellant is continuing in the schedule premises since 31 years, from the date of expiry of lease under Ex.A.2. Admittedly, the appellant has not offered the rents to other lessors. Though a suit for specific performance has been filed in the year 1997, the appellant has not deposited the rents. Without any further extension of lease deed, the appellant is continuing in the schedule premises since 31 years, from the date of expiry of lease under Ex.A.2. Admittedly, the appellant has not offered the rents to other lessors. It is an admitted case of the appellant that the appellant has not paid to the rents to the owners/land-lords for two decades. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the concurrent findings arrived by both the courts below that the appellant committed willful default of payment of rents to the plaintiff. 18. The appellant relied on clause 3 condition (iii) of Ex.A.2 lease deed. The appellant contended that in view of Clause 3 of Ex.A.2 lease deed, the lease of 30 years will automatically renewed for a further period of 30 years from 01.04.1994 to 31.03.2024 in view of Section 5(2) and Section 7(3) of the Act. 19. Except referring clause 3 (iii) of lease deed, need for requirement is not at all mentioned in Ex.B.2 letter. The rents are not paying by the tenant/ appellant to the land-lords from 01.04.1994 onwards and the appellant squatted on the schedule premises without paying rents for a period of two decades. It is admitted fact by both the parties that the rents are not paid to the owners of the schedule property by the appellant (tenant) and rents are not deposited during the pendency of the suit. Even the contention of the appellant is that they have not paid rents for a period of 20 years from 01.04.1994 and subsequently after 20 years they are depositing the rents into the Court by filing a petition. 20. The material on record reveals that the 1 st defendant/ appellant enjoyed the property without paying single paise towards rents to the plaintiff for a period of two decades. The appellant failed to prove that there is bonafide requirement apart from their legal right to have automatic renewal under Sections 5(2) and 7(3) of the Act. In fact, the appellant did not deposit a meager quarterly rent of Rs.300/- for every four months for 20 long years. Desire is also not specifically mentioned in Ex.B.2 letter. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant acted fairly. The renewal was actuated by unfair and unreasonable motives. In fact, the appellant did not deposit a meager quarterly rent of Rs.300/- for every four months for 20 long years. Desire is also not specifically mentioned in Ex.B.2 letter. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant acted fairly. The renewal was actuated by unfair and unreasonable motives. As such, it cannot be said that under the guise of Section 5(2) of the Act, the appellant is entitled for automatic renewal. No reasons are assigned by the appellant in the letter addressed to the plaintiff for renewal is necessary except mere expressing desire for renewal. In the case on hand, the appellant company is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, therefore, enjoined with a date to act fairly and reasonably, just because it has been conferred with a statutory power, the same by itself would not mean that exercise thereof in any manner whatsoever will meet the requirements of law. The appellant/1 st defendant in the present suit proceedings filed a suit for specific performance vide O.S.No.273 of 1997 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalle and after full pledged trial, the suit for specific performance has been dismissed and the appellant herein filed First Appeal vide A.S.No.26 of 2017 and the same was also dismissed by the X Additional District & Sessions Judge at Anakapalle and a second appeal has been filed before this Court vide S.A.No.434 of 2021, this Court also found the 1 st defendant/appellant is not entitled the relief of specific permanence of automatic renewal clause in lease deed. The lease is expired by 31.03.1994 and there is no further lease deed from 01.04.1994 onwards in between plaintiff and the 1 st defendant/ appellant. As on today also, the appellant is continuing in possession of the schedule premises as a tenant since 61 years on a meager quarterly rent of Rs.300/- for every four months. Clause 4 (i) of agreement says….. …”If the rent hereby reserved or any part thereof shall be unpaid for twenty-one days after becoming payable and being formally demanded by Registered Letter or if any covenant on the lessee’s part herein contained shall not be performed or observed it shall be lawful for the lessor at any time thereafter to re-enter upon the demised premises or any part thereof in the name of the whole and thereupon this demise shall absolutely determine.” 21. As stated supra, the appellant committed willful default of payment of rents and therefore, the appellant is liable to be evicted from the suit schedule premises. 22. Having regard to the reasons assigned, this Court is satisfied that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below on all the issues/points against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff do not brook interference and that both the Courts below are justified in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and the material on record and there was neither illegality nor irregularity in those findings and therefore, the findings do not require to be upset. I do not find any illegality in the concurrent findings arrived by both the Courts below. 23. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree of both the Courts below by granting six (06) months time to the appellant/1 st defendant to vacate the plaint schedule premises. Considering the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed.