The main legal point established is that after the lease period ends and a valid notice to vacate is given, the lessee is obligated to vacate the premises, and continued occupancy is illegal.

D.N. PATEL, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Original respondents of W.P.(C) No. 3044 of 2010, Reported in 2011 (2) JLJR 324 which was preferred by the present respondent. This writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 9th March, 2011, whereby, even after the lease period was over, the learned Single Judge permitted occupancy of the leased premises for years together.

2. Having heard counsels appearing for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that impugned premises, viz. a godown, is owned by these appellants.

3. Said property was given on lease to respondent (original petitioner) on 2nd May, 1997, for a period of 11 months and the lease period was over as on 31st March, 1998. Thereafter, these appellants had given a Notice, dated 3rd June, 2010, (Annexure 7 to the supplementary affidavit to this Letters Patent Appeal) to the respondent (original petitioner) to vacate the premises because appellant-the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Chaibasa was in the need of the godown for its own use. This action of these appellants was under challenge in the writ petition filed by the respondent, being W.P. (C) No. 3044 of 2010., Reported in 2011 (2) JLJR 324

4. Thus, as it appears from the facts of the case and the reply given by the respondent in the writ petition, admittedly, lease period was over as on 31st March, 1998. Lessor had already given a Notice to vacate the premises. Thus, it appears that no further action was needed from the side of the appellants as a simple Notice is sufficient to make the lessee vacate the premises once the lease period is over.

This aspect of the matter was not appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition.

5. It ought to be kept in mind that if anything is to be done during the lease period, then it requires another course of action, whereas, in the facts of the present case, the lease period was over. The lease was never extended. On the contrary, Notice was given to vacate the premises because lessor was in need of the premises. There cannot be a compulsory contract. This court cannot compel the lessor to enter into a contract with the respondent. The very crucial ingredient of the free consent, under Section 13 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, will be missing, if such type of petitions are allowed by this Court. Once the lease period is over and Notice was given to vacate the premises, the lessee has to vacate the premises. Occupation of such type of premises, after lease period is over and Notice period is over, is not permissible in law.

6. Learned Single Judge has referred to Section 18 of the Agriculture Produce Markets Act, which has no relevance when lease is for fixed period and when Notice to vacate the premises has also been given. There is no standard format of a Notice to be given. It should be in a format prescribed in the code of Civil Procedure. Too much technical view ought not to be taken in such matters.

7. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shanti Devi v. Amal Kumar Banerjee, reported in (1981) 2 SCC 199 as under:

4. The courts below have apparently been misled by the averments in para 3 of the plaint that because the defendant could not fulfil the condition regarding obtaining of a licence, the grant made by the indenture of lease did not and could not take effect, as also that in para 7 that the tenancy of lease was from month to month. The parties could not by their pleadings alter the intrinsic character of the lease or bring about a change of the rights and obligations flowing there from. The lease was a lease for a definite term and, therefore, expired by efflux of time by reason of Section 111(a) of the Transfer of Property Act. That being so, the service of a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not necessary.

5. Undoubtedly, Section 111(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, which deals with determ