The only point for determination in this second appeal is - whether the defendants are tenants holding over on expiry of the lease for fixed period. In short, the facts of the case may be stated as follows : Shyam Charan Deb took registered lease of the suit land measuring 1 B 15 K in Mouza Ambi-kapur Part II Paigana Barakpur, District Cachar, from Sibaran Gosai on 10.3.50 for a fixed period of 10 years on annual rent of Rs. 30/- and resided there by constructing a house. The lease was renewable on expiry of the period. Before expiry of the period of the lease, Shyam Charan Deb, died. The defendants, who are his legal heirs, continued in occupation. The lessor Sibaran Gosai also died in 1961 and his son, the plaintiff, became owner of the suit land. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants did not pay rent to him from 1375 BS onwards. On that allegation the plaintiff served notice on the defendants terminating the tenancy and filed a suit on 16.6.79 for getting khas possession of the suit land by evicting the defendants. The defendants filed written statement. They contended that the lease expired on 9.3.60 by afflux of time, and there being no renewal they did not pay the rent after that year (1960). So, they pleaded that their possession of the suit land after 9.3.60 became adverse to the plaintiff and therefore the suit filed in 1979, beyond 12 years from that date, was barred by limitation. Both sides examined witnesses. Exhibit 1 was the registered lease dated 10.3.50 which expired on 9.3.60. On evidence, the learned Munsiff No.4,Silchar who tried the suit, found that after expiry of the lease there was no renewal and the defendants neither paid any rent to the plaintiff. So, he held that tenancy stood determined on expiry of the lease in 1960 and that the possession of the defendants became adverse from that year. Thus he dismissed the suit (filed in 1979) as being barred by Article 67 of the Limitation Act. On appeal, the learned Assistant District Judge No. 2, Silchar, also found that after 1960 there was no renewal and the defendants did not pay any rent. However, he held that on expiry of the lease, determination of the tenancy should be confirmed either by landlord or the tenant. On appeal, the learned Assistant District Judge No. 2, Silchar, also found that after 1960 there was no renewal and the defendants did not pay any rent. However, he held that on expiry of the lease, determination of the tenancy should be confirmed either by landlord or the tenant. As this was not done he held that the defendants continued as tenants by holding over under section 116 of the T.P.Act and their possession was not adverse to the plaintiff. Accordingly, he reversed the dismissal and decreed the suit. Hence this second appeal by the defendants. Mr. C.R.De, learned counsel for the defendant-appellants contends that in a lease for fixed period the tenancy is determined by afflux of time. He submitted that after expiry of the lease the tenancy does not continue unless the lease is renewed or unless the lessee continued to pay the rent and the possession of the lessee became adverse from the date of expiry of the lease. He relies on Sita Ram vs. Govind, AIR 1970 Rajasthan 68. In that case it was held that when a suit for arrears of rent and eviction is filed more than 12 years after expiry of the lease and the tenant holding over asserts hostile title and has never paid any rent, the suit is barred under Article 139 of the Limitation Act. Mr.S.K. Senapati, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent, on the other hand, contends that expiry of the period of lease not automatically determine the tenancy and a lessee continues as tenant holding over until the tenancy is snapped by either party. He submitted that mere non-payment of rent after expiry of the lease was not enough. On this point he relied on Dharani Baid vs. Sadhucharan Ram, AIR 1956 Assam 20. There it was found that after expiry of the lease the lessee paid the rent, so it was held that this has proved the subsistence of relationship of landlord and tenant. It was on that finding this Court held that mere non-payment of rent even for any long period would not deprive the landlord of his right to the land unless the tenant proved that he had at some stage repudiated his landlord's title and thereby severed that relationship. It was on that finding this Court held that mere non-payment of rent even for any long period would not deprive the landlord of his right to the land unless the tenant proved that he had at some stage repudiated his landlord's title and thereby severed that relationship. As both the Courts have found, in the instant case, that there was no renewal and the defendants did not pay any rent from 1960, this decision will not be of assistance to the plaintiff. The next case raised on by Mr. Senapati is Bhawanji vs. Himatlal, AIR 1972 SC 819 . In that case it was held that the act of holding over offer the expiry of the term does not create a tenancy of any kind and that the assent of the landlord to the continuance of possession will create a new tenancy. It was explained that what section 116 of the T.P.Act contemplates was that on one side there should be an offer of taking new lease evidenced by the lessee remaining in possession of the property after his term is over and on the other side there must be a definite consent to the continuance of possession by the landlord expressed by accep­tance of rent or otherwise. In the instant case it is not the case of the plaintiff that after expiry of the lease the defendants offered to take a new lease, and on such offer he consented to the continuance of their possession. Both the Courts have found that the defendants did not pay rent from 1960. So, this decision of the Supreme Court also does not help the plaintiff. Rather it would go against him. In view of the decisions relied on by both sides, I am of the opinion that under section 116 of the T.P.Act a lessee who continued in possession of the land after expiry of the period of leas? does not continue to be tenant, unless there is renewal of lease or unless he continued to pay rent even without rene­wal. Therefore after expiry of the lease the defendants who remained in posse­ssion are not tenants holding over. The tenancy stood determined on expiry of lease. The possession of the defendants therefore became adverse from 1960 when the lease expired. Therefore after expiry of the lease the defendants who remained in posse­ssion are not tenants holding over. The tenancy stood determined on expiry of lease. The possession of the defendants therefore became adverse from 1960 when the lease expired. The suit filed by the plaintiff in 1979, beyond 12 years from 1960, is clearly barred by Article 67 of the Limitation Act. The decision of the learned Assistant District Judge No.2 therefore cannot be sustained. In the result the appeal is allowed. The decision of the learned Assistant District Judge No.2 decreeing the suit is set aside and that of the learned Munsiff No.4, Silchar, dismissing the suit is restored. I make no order as to costs.