Short Note : 1. At the instance of Mandir Shri Laxminarain, respondent No. 1 (hereinafter called the respondent-Mandir), proceedings started on 27 July 1964, in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Sabalgarh, District Morena, under section 168 (4) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter called the Code) for the ejectment of Fosuram, who died during the pendency of those proceedings and whose legal representatives are the petitioners, Ramhet and Raghunandan alias Raghnath. The applicant's case was that the non-applicant Fosuram was a sub-lessee. By notice, he was asked to desist from cultivation from 1 July 1964, after cutting the Rabi crop. The application was resisted by the non-applicant. vkt egkxBca/ku Hkktik ls VDdj ysus dh fLFkfr esa gSA ysfdu ;gka ij vg~e iz”u ;g gS fd egkxBca/ku turk dks fLFkj vkSj etcwr ljdkj ns ik;sxk \ D;k og turk rFkk ns[k D;ksafd Hkkjr esa tc xBca/ku ij vk/kkfjr gqbZ ljdkjs cuh gS] og yEcsa le; rd ugha py ikbZ gS \ pkgs eksjkth nslkbZ] ohŒihŒ flag] ,pŒMhŒ nsoxkSM+k ;k fQj bUnzz dqekj xqtjky dh ljdkj gksA 2. In the case of a muafi Devasthani (i.e. rent free grant to a temple), the temple must be presumed to be a public religious institution, within the meaning of entry (viii) of section 168 (2), unless the contrary is alleged and proved. The burden is on the party which alleges that it is a private institution. 3. Person in entry (v) of section 168 (2) of the Code, includes a juristic, artificial or conventional person. 4. The Deity or idol installed in a temple is a person of the category specified in entry (v) of section 168 (2) and is subject to "disability" within the meaning of that entry. 5. The cessation of a lease contemplated in the second proviso to section 168 (2) of the Code is automatic and mandatory. Cessation of the lease is effected notwithstanding any contract to the contrary and irrespective of the wishes of the parties or either of them. 6. The expression "on the lease ceasing to be in force" in sub-section (4) of section 168 of the Code is comprehensive enough to include Statutory cessation of a lease by virtue of the second proviso to section 168 (2), as well as contractual determination of a lease, for instance, by effluxion of time or on the happening of an event specified in the lease agreement. 7. 7. A lessee under section 168 (2) of the Code can be ejected even before the expiry of the lease period, if there is contravention of any material term or condition of the lease. 8. The Bhumiswami and the lessee can always agree that the lease will stand determined on the happening of specified and the lease will cease to be in force on the happening of the specified event and will come within the purview of section 168 (4). 9. The second proviso to section 168 (2) of the Code does not apply to entry (viii) or entry (ix) of that sub-section. However, the lease can cease to be in force under section 168 (4). 10. Where a lease under section 168 (2) is granted for a fixed period, it will cease to be in force, within the meaning of section 168 (4), on the expiry of that period. 11. In this State, when an agricultural lease is granted without expressing any term, it must be deemed to be from year to year (meaning agricultural year). Such a lease is determinable by notice given reasonably in advance requiring the lessee to desist from cultivating the land from the first day of the ensuing agricultural year (i.e. 1st of July). 12. Whether the expression public, religious or charitable institution, in entry (viii) of section 168 (2) of the Code, carries, the same meaning and must be read as employed in the definition of "public trust" in the M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951 (public religious purpose and public charitable purpose) is left open. 13. When the Present case is judged by the above tests, we have no doubt that Fosuram, father of the petitioner, from whom they claim to have derived possession, was a lessee from year to year and his lease could be and was determined by notice (Ex.P-1) with effect from 1 July 1964, which called upon Fosuram to desist from cultivating the land from that date. Thus, the lease ceased to be in force on 1 July 1964, within the meaning of section 168 (4) of the Code and on the application of the Bhumiswami Deity, Fosuram was liable to be ejected. This is what the Board of Revenue has held. There is no case for issuance of a writ to quash the order of the Board of Revenue. This is what the Board of Revenue has held. There is no case for issuance of a writ to quash the order of the Board of Revenue. CRN 113 of 1971 decided on 27.2.1975 distinguished AIR 1966 SC 1624 and 1962 JLJ 670 : 1962 RN 423 relied on. Petition dismissed.