The requirement for State Government sanction in property disposal under Section 80(5) of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 applies only to the sale or absolute transfer of property worth more than Rs. 25,000, not to the creation of a lease.

S.C. Pandey, J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the appellant/defendant against the judgment and decree dated 21-3-1990, passed by IInd Additional District, Judge, Satna, in Civil Appeal No. 87-A of 1987, arising out of judgment and decree dated 19-1-1987, passed by IInd Civil Judge Class-I, Satna, in Civil Suit No. 73-A of 1984.

2. Shortly staled, the tacts necessary tor the disposal of this appeal are that the respondent No. 1 filed Civil Suit No. 73-Aof 1984 in the Court of Ilnd Civil Judge, Class I, Satna, claiming that he was entitled to a declaration that he acquired the rights of a lessee in the auction held on 21-5-1984 by the appellant-Municipal Corporation, Satna. The appellant was made defendant No. 1 in the plaint. The State of Madhya Pradesh, the respondent No. 2 in this appeal, was arrayed as defendant No. 2 and Siyasharan, the respondent No. 3 in this appeal, was arrayed as defendant No. 3 in the plaint, in whose favour the suit-shop was allotted by the appellant, on refusal for grant of its sanction by the State Government in favour of the respondent No. 1. It was also claimed by the respondent No. 1 that he be declared as a lessee of the suil-property for a rent of Rs. 150/- per month for a period of 35 months with a right of renewal on payment of increase in rent by 25% of the rent. The respondent No. 1 also sought a mandatory injunction against the appellant as well as the Stale Government for following the conditions of the auction and prayed for declaration that the order of the respondent No. 2, dated 17-7-1984 is illegal and without jurisdiction. The respondent No. 1 also claimed possession from the respondent No. 3 Siyasharan and further claimed that an order of permanent injunction be passed restraining the appellant and the respondent No. 2 from interfering with his possession over the suit property.

3. The respondent No. 1 claimed that he was one of the persons who filled the tender form which was for auction of 56 shops, on 21-5-1984 and deposited the premium in accordance with the terms of the tender. It was also alleged by the respondent No. 1 that the auction was held according to the terms of the tender and he was declared as a successful bidder; and accordingly, the contract was totally completed after the acceptance by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Satna. It was also claimed that the contract having been completed, the Municipal Corporation, Satna allotted the suit-shop to the respondent No. 3, Siyasharan for the reason that allotment of the suit-shop ,in his favour was not sanctioned by the State Government by order dated 17-7-1984. It was claimed by the respondent No. 1 that the order of the State Government was without jurisdiction and, therefore, the cancellation of the allotment was illegal and without the authority of law. It was further claimed that pursuant to the order dated 17-7-1984, grant of lease in favour of respondent No. 3, Siyasharan, made by the Municipal Corporation, Satna, was totally illegal as it was he who was the legal lessee of the suit-shop. Accordingly, the aforesaid reliefs were claimed by the respondent No. 1.

4. The appellant, inter alia, pleaded in its written statement that the auction held by it was subject to the sanction of the Government. Since the sanction of the allotment of the suit-shop to the respondent No. 1 was not granted by the State Government, the appellant had re-auctioned the property and allotted it to the respondent No. 3, Siyasharan.

5. The Trial Court, having framed the relevant issues on the point, after full trial, dismissed the suit filed by the respondent No. 1.

6. In appeal, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court were reversed by the Lower Appellate Court, holding that the respondent No. 1 had a right to obtain possession of the suit-shop and also declaration to the effect that the subsequent auction of the property on 28-8-1984 and the order of the Government dated 17-7-1