1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 130 of 2006 Deepak Laxmanarayan Agrawal..vs.. Municipal Council, Achalpur __________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's CORAM : C.L Pangarkar, J. DATED : 13/03/2008 Heard Shri Anjan De, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri A. B. Patil, learned counsel for respondent. This second appeal is preferred by the original defendant against whom a decree has been passed by the first Appellate Court. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. It was contention of the appellant/plaintiff that for the year 1986-87, there was auction of the suit plot and in that auction, the defendant had offered highest bid. Therefore, the leasehold rights were given to the defendant for the year 1986-87 and the premium was fixed at Rs. 1095/-. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the leasehold rights of defendant came to an end on 31/3/1987. The defendant did not vacate the premises though the lease had come to an end. The plaintiff, therefore, had instituted a suit. The defendant had resisted the suit contending that the action on the part of the plaintiff was malafide. 2 The lease was for year to year and there was no bid. As such, the defendant had never made offer as alleged by the plaintiff. It was contended that the notice under Section 106 was necessary before terminating the tenancy of the defendant. The learned Judge of the trial Court found that there was no auction and the leasehold right for the said plot was for the year 1986-87. The defendant had not offered highest bid of Rs. 1095/-, the defendant was not liable to vacate the premises. Holding so, the trial Court has dismissed the suit. The first Appellate Court, however, did not concur with the findings of the trial Court and found that the lease of the defendant had come to an end by efflux of time. There was no need to issue any notice under Section 106 and he has also found that admittedly the lease was for a period of one year only. The learned counsel for the appellant contended before me that both the Courts have concurrently held that there was no auction and since there was no auction, therefore, there was no contract between the parties and in the absence of contract, the lease of suit plot should be held to be month to month. He, therefore, submitted that a 15 days clear notice was required to be given under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the defendant in the written statement has contended 3 that for year 1986-87 he had taken leasehold rights for the sum of Rs. 1095/-. This admission of the defendant that he had taken leasehold rights for one year for Rs. 1095/- clearly suggests that it was lease for the period of one year only. Such pleading is not taken at only one place, but is found in written statement at several places. For instance, the defendant in paragraph 22 has contended that he has made construction on the suit plot on a representation that the lease would be continued from year to year. Since, there is clear pleading in paragraph 4 of the written statement that the premium of Rs.1095/- was settled for one year and it was paid by the defendant, there is no other conclusion that can be drawn but to say that the defendant was tenant for one year and his tenancy had come to an end after completion of one year. Once it is held that the lease was for fixed term of one year, there was no need to issue any notice. The learned first Appellate Court has rightly held that the lease had come to an end by efflux of time. No other substantial question of law is involved in the matter. The second appeal is dismissed in limine. After passing this order, the learned counsel for the appellant contended before me that the respondent's counsel had made a statement before the Court that the Municipal Council is ready to offer one shop/block to the plaintiff. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for respondent submits that he does not resile from what he has stated 4 before the Court that the Municipal Council is ready to offer one block to the plaintiff, on the condition on which blocks have been allotted to the other persons. JUDGE. Jsa