The acceptance of rent by government officials following the expiry of a lease does not confer or renew legal title. Upon expiration, a holding-over occupant remains a trespasser unless a formal renewal occurs, as specific governmental grant conditions override general property rights regarding the determination of leasehold interest.

1. On the previous date, matter was listed for dictation of judgment but learned counsel for the both the parties want to address on certain more issues, consequently, they are permitted to address.

2. On the previous date, this Court formulated one more additional substantial question of law, which reads as under:

“Whether both the courts below committed illegality in passing the decree despite binding and overriding effect of Section 3 of the Government Grants Act?”

3. The aforesaid substantial question of law is now slightly modified, as under:

“Whether both the courts below have committed illegality by considering the overriding effect of the terms and conditions of the lease deed in view of old Section (3) and Section 2 (3) of the Governments Grants Act, as amended in the State of U.P.?”

4. In reference to the aforesaid substantial question of law, Mr. Sunil Khera, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State placed reliance to paragraph 77 and 78 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Express Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. and others VS. Union of India (1986) 1 SCC 133 the reference of which has been given in my previous order dated 23.12.2025. Now, in furtherance of the previous arguments, today, he placed reliance on another judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escort Farms Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital and others (2004) 4 SCC 281 particularly, by placing reliance to paragraph 22 to paragraph 35, which are being extracted herein as below:

“22. The Farm being the ostensible owner and agent of the real owners was competent to take part in ceiling proceedings on behalf of the holder of the lands and the proceedings cannot be held to be invalid or infructuous. The learned counsel for the State is right in relying on Explanation I and Explanation II below Section 5 of the Ceiling Act in support of his submission that where the land is held by an ostensible holder it would be presumed to have been held by the real owner. The status of the Farm on the land was merely as a licensee or an agent. The possession of the Farm was clearly as an ostensible owner. The proceedings initiated, conducted and concluded against the ostensible owner are binding both on the ostensible and the real owner in accordance with Section 5 with Explanations I and II thereunder which read as under:

“5. Imposition of ceiling.—(1) On and from the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972, no tenure- holder shall be entitled to hold in the aggregate throughout Uttar Pradesh, any land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him.

Explanation I.—In determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenure-holder, all land held by him in his own right, whether in his own name, or ostensibly in the name of any other person, shall be taken into account. Explanation II.—If on or before 24-1-1971, any land was held by a person who continues to be in its actual cultivatory possession and the name of any other person is entered in the annual register after the said date either in addition to or to the exclusion of the former and whether on the basis of a deed of transfer or licence or on the basis of a decree, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved to the satisfaction of the prescribed authority, that the first- mentioned person continues to hold the land and that it is so held by him ostensibly in the name of the second-mentioned person.”

23. The Farm, t