JUDGMENT P.R. Sharma, J. 1. This in a defendants Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated the 20th of April, 1959 passed by the Second Addl. District Judge, Gwalior whereby he reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge First Class Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 84 of 1958. 2. The suit out of which the present appeal arises was for ejectment and rent in respect of a shop which the plaintiff had purchased on 16-1-1957 at an auction-sale and which was at that time in the occupation of the defendant as a tenant. The sale was confirmed on 3-7-1957 and on 8-11-1957 the plaintiff served a notice on the defendant requiring him to vacate the premises under his occupancy, at the termination of the month of tenancy which was current on the 16th day of the receipt of the notice. The plaintiff stated that he needed the premises for his requirements. 3. The trial Court decreed the claim for arrears of rent, but dismissed the claim for possession on the ground that the notice dated 8-11-1957 was not in accordance with law. The decision of the trial Court on the latter point was on appeal reversed by the Second Addl. District, Judge Gwalior. 4. The only question which falls for consideration in the present appeal is whether the defendant is entitled to be treated as a tenant holding over, after the expiry of the term of the tenancy which was for a fixed term of 11 months ending on 31-7-1957. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that inasmuch as the plaintiff had demanded rent for the entire period and had described the defendant in the plaint as a tenant, he should be treated as a tenant holding over. 5. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the case of Badal Vs. Ram Bharosa A.I.R. 1938 All. 649). In this case the lessee was allowed to hold over after the expiry of the term of the lease. When by acceptance of rentor by any other mode the lesser signifies his consent to the continuance of possession by the tenant of the premises after the expiry of the lease, the provisions of Sec 116 of the Transfer of Property Act would apply and the tenant shall be deemed to be a tenant holding over. When by acceptance of rentor by any other mode the lesser signifies his consent to the continuance of possession by the tenant of the premises after the expiry of the lease, the provisions of Sec 116 of the Transfer of Property Act would apply and the tenant shall be deemed to be a tenant holding over. Where such is the case it may be permissible to hold that the tenant is holding over on the same terms as the original lease. But there is nothing in the present case to indicate that the plaintiff had at any time after 31-7-1957 consented to the defendant continuing in possession of the leased property. It was held in the case of Md. Fazihzzaman Vs. A Hussain (A.I.R. 1938 All. 314) that where the lease is for a fixed period and is determined by the effiux of time limited by the lease, notice must be presumed by implication to be given when the lease was executed. No notice u/s 106 of the Transfer of property Act is required in such a case for the termination of lease. In Seaila Bala Dassee Vs. H.A. Tappassier A.I.R. 1952 Cal 455) it was held that where a tenant holds over after the expiry of the lease of immoveable property and there is no agreement as to the terms of the holding ovor, it must be deemed to be a lease of immoveable property and there is no agreement as to the terms of the holding over, it must be deemed to be a lease renewed from month to month terminable by 15 days notice-expiring with the end of the month of the tenancy, if the lease in question was not for agricultural or manufacturing purposes. 6. A Division Bench of this Court has held in the case Hasan Ali Vs Darashah A.I.R. 1949 Nag. 282) that where a tenant continues in possession after the termination of tenancy without the consent of the landlord he is a tenant on sufferance and not a tenant at will. He is no better than a trespasser and no question of notice to quit can arise in his case. 7. 282) that where a tenant continues in possession after the termination of tenancy without the consent of the landlord he is a tenant on sufferance and not a tenant at will. He is no better than a trespasser and no question of notice to quit can arise in his case. 7. On applying the principles deducible from the cases discussed by me above, it would clearly follow that unless the defendant could prove that he was allowed to continue in possession of the leased premises by the plaintiff and that his continuance in possession after the expiry of the lease was with the plaintiff's express or implied consent, the defendant cannot be treated as a tenant holding over u/s 116 of the Transfer of Property Act. If he is not a tenant holding over then according to the view of the Nagpur High Court he is a tenant on sufferance and is as such not entitled to any notice. According to the Calcutta High Court he is entitled to a 15 days' notice u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act in the case of a lease of immoveable property for a fixed term for non-agricultural and non-manufacturing purposes, I am, however, bound by the view expressed by the Nagpur High Court in Hasan Ali's case (supra). 8. It may, however, be noted that the defendant was in this case given more than 15 days notice ending with the month of tenancy. It would, therefore, be a valid notice even according to the view taken by the Calcutta High Court. 9. This appeal has, therefore, no force and is hereby dismissed with costs. Counsels fee according to the scale. Appeal dismissed