ORDER J.S. Trivedi, J. - This is a Defendant's second appeal against the judgment of the First Additional Civil Judge, Meerut, dismissing his appeal and confirming the decree of the trial court. 2. The Defendant Appellant is said to have taken the land in suit on a monthly rent of Rs. 100 which was reduced to Rs. 75 subsequently. The Plaintiff Respondent filed a suit for arrears of rent and for ejectment. The Defendant contented the suit in the ground that as he had made permanent constructions over the land in suit he could not be evicted from the premises. The suit was also contested or the plea of estoppel and acquiescence. Both the courts repelled the Defendant Appellant's contention and decreed the Plaintiff's suit. 3. In this second appeal, Learned Counsel for the Appellant has contended that She Appellant having constructed the buildings of a permanent character the Respondent was estopped from ejecting him as he acquiesced in such construction. He has also contended that u/s 60 of the Easement Act, he acquired the right to remain in possession over the premises so long as the constructions existed over it. In support of his contention that the Plaintiff Respondent is estopped from evicting the Appellant, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied on Secretary of State v. Itwari 1937 AWR 597. The principal question in that case was whether the lease for building purposes was a permanent lease or a lease from month to month and it was in that context that this Court interpreted the lease to be a permanent lease. That case is quite distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In the present case the building was leased to the Defendant Appellant not for building purposes. If during the continuance of the lease the lessee constructs any building of a permanent character he in law cannot be held entitled to the rights of a permanent lessee without any express stipulation to that effect. It would be giving a free licence to the lessee of the premises to convert a lease from month to month into a permanent lease by making permanent constructions. This contention of the Learned Counsel has therefore no force. 4. It would be giving a free licence to the lessee of the premises to convert a lease from month to month into a permanent lease by making permanent constructions. This contention of the Learned Counsel has therefore no force. 4. Coming next to the question whether u/s 60 of the Easement Act the Appellant acquired some rights which became irrevocable by making some permanent constructions Section 60 of the said Act applies to licences alone. The Appellant was not a licensee nor is there anything to show that acting under that licence he made permanent constructions with the result that the licence became irrevocable. The cases relied upon by the Learned Counsel have no relevance to the facts of the present case. 5. It is further contended that in any event the constructions were in the nature of improvement of buildings made at considerable cost done in good faith without any protest from the Plaintiff. The question of improvement does not arise in the present case. The liability of a lessee on the termination of the lease is to put the lessor in possession of the property in the form in which it was taken by him. It is for the lessee to remove the materials of construction. The finding of the trial court was that the constructions are temporary ones. The lower appellate court has given no finding on this point and, as said above, even if the constructions be of a permanent nature then also the Appellant can have no right for the continuance of the same over the land in suit. 6. The result, therefore, is that this appeal has no force and is accordingly dismissed with costs. The Appellant is granted three months' time to vacate the land provided the decretal amount is paid within one month and the rent of the land in suit is deposited in the first week of every month.