JUDGMENT H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - This appeal by leave u/s 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against an order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Hamirpur on appeal in a case under Sections 298 and 299 of the U.P. Municipalities Act. 2. The Respondent Abdul Habib was prosecuted on a complaint filed by the Municipal Board, Rath for having committed breaches of two of the byelaws framed by the Municipal Board u/s 298(J) and (C) of the Act. One of those byelaws was that: No person shall occupy or use any land or building, belonging to or vested in the Committee or under its control, unless he has received a lease thereof or written permission from the President. The other byelaw for the breach of which the Respondent was proceeded against runs as follows: Every person to whom a lease of a land or building belonging to or vested in the Committee or under its control is given, shall be required to execute the lease or agreement deed within 15 days from the date on which the grant of a lease is communicated to him. 3. Before the trial Magistrate the Respondent had pleaded that as the Municipal Board had failed to give him possession over the platform which was auctioned in his favour and the barber who used to occupy the same in previous years had continued in possession the consent of the Municipal Board on paper to give lease of that platform to the Respondent had remained ineffectual and, therefore, the question of his executing a deed of lease did not arise. 4. On an assessment of evidence the trial Magistrate held that the Respondent did not get possession over the platform aforesaid in pursuance of the auction held in his favour and, therefore, he was not guilty of having committed a breach of byelaw No. 1. He was, however, of opinion that although the Respondent was not delivered possession of the platform be infringed byelaw No. 2 when he did not execute the lease or agreement deed within 15 days of the notice issued to him by the Municipal Board for the aforesaid purpose. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-. 5. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-. 5. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge held that as the Respondent was not given possession of the demised platform the Municipal Board could not expect him to execute the lease or deed" of agreement, as directed by it and the conviction of the Appellant for breach of byelaw No. 2 was not sustainable in law. 6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant. Lease of an immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made for a certain time in consideration of rent paid therefore .Under the law the lessor is bound, on the lessee's request, to put him in possession of the property, Therefore, it must be held that grant of a lease presupposes on the part of the lessor to put the lessee in possession and if the lessor fails to perform that part cannot enforce the obligations of the lessee under the agreement. We, therefore, agree with the finding of the trial court that as giving of the lease necessarily contemplates the idea of not only granting the lease but also of patting the lessee into possession, the Respondent cannot be convicted for an infringement of byelaw 2 of the Municipal Board. There is yet another aspect of the question. The Municipal Board had sanctioned lease of the platform for one year in favour of the Respondent. Under the law, no written document either registered or unregistered is necessary for effecting such a lease. Therefore in a lease of this type transfer of possession is essential and it cannot be said that the possession could have been transferred only after the execution of the lease. In this view of the matter also, it must be held that the grant of a lease by the Municipal Board in favour of the Respondent presupposes a transfer of possession and in the absence of that transfer the lease had remained inoperative and no right could flow from it in favour of the Municipal Board. 7. Accordingly, we uphold the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge and dismiss this appeal.