JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, J.—In this Regular Second Appeal, Municipal Committee, Solan, is aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 23-10-1982 passed by the District Judge, Solan and Sirmaur Districts at Solan, confirming the decree and Judgment dated 26-9-1981 of Senior Sub-Judge, Solan and decreeing the suit of plaintiff-respondent, Arjan Singh for specific performance. 2. On 18-6-1980 Arjan Singh filed a suit for specific performance of the contract dated 19-5-1960 read with contract dated 5-8-1961 and to direct the defendants to execute further lease deed in respect of the property in dispute for a period of 20 years from 19-5-1980 to 18-5-2000 A D in accordance with law. The case of Arjan Singh was that on 19-5-1960 Municipal Committee, Solan, leased out its property that is, land measuring 413 Sq. metres comprised in Khasra No. 206, Lower Bazar, Solan and structure thereon for a period of ten years at an yearly rent of Rs 420 By another lease deed executed on 5-8-1961, the lease period of ten years was extended to twenty years and some of the conditions of the lease were also altered. Both these lease deeds are Ex. P-A and Ex. P-B on the record. It was further alleged by Arjan Singh that there is a renewal clause in these lease deeds according to which he exercised his option to renew the lease for a further period of 20 years vide his letters Ex P-D and Ex. PF. He had also deposited Rs. 420 towards the lease amount in the year 1980-81 and was willing to perform his part of the contract for execution of a new lease deed But Municipal Committee, Solan, instead of renewing the lease deed, gave notice dated 19-4-1980 and 4-6-1980 Ex DA and Ex. D-B, for vacation on the ground that it required the premises in dispute for the public purpose of development of bus-stand etc., as per its unanimous resolution dated 22-3-1980, Ex. D-Y. In these circumstances Arjan Singh filed the suit out of which the present appeal arises. 3. Municipal Committee, Solan, resisted the suit and took preliminary objection that contract was void ab-initio as the Municipal Committee was not empowered to execute a lease deed for twenty years. D-Y. In these circumstances Arjan Singh filed the suit out of which the present appeal arises. 3. Municipal Committee, Solan, resisted the suit and took preliminary objection that contract was void ab-initio as the Municipal Committee was not empowered to execute a lease deed for twenty years. On merits it took the defence that as the property in dispute is required for the public purpose of extension of the present bus-stand and for providing taxi stand, it had decided, vide its resolution dated 22-3-1980, not to lease it out any further. The defence of Municipal Committee, Solan, did not find favour with the trial Court and it decreed the suit on 26-9-1981 and directed the Municipal Committee "to renew the lease of the plaintiff for a further period of 20 years or for such period which the defendant is competent under law to create lease and execute a valid document thereof at the expense of the plaintiff and get it registered within the period of two months from today—" Interpreting the renewal clause, the trial Court held that if Arjan Singh exercised his option for renewal, the Municipal Committee was bound to execute new lease deed but for the period which is within its competence. These findings were confirmed by the District Judge in the appeal filed by the Municipal Committee. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record The first submission made by Sh. K. D. Sood, learned Counsel for the appellant, is that the discretion exercised by the courts below for passing the decree for specific performance in favour of Arjan Singh is not justified on the facts and circumstances proved on record. According to Sh. K. D Sood, the second lease deed dated 5-8-1961, whereby the premises in dispute were leased out for twenty years, was not specifically enforceable as it was not a valid contract. He has pointed out that under Rule 3 of the H. P. Municipal Properties Rules, 1971, prior sanction of the Deputy Commissioner was required for creating a lease for more than ten years in respect of the property of the Municipal Committee, which was admittedly not obtained in the present case. He has pointed out that under Rule 3 of the H. P. Municipal Properties Rules, 1971, prior sanction of the Deputy Commissioner was required for creating a lease for more than ten years in respect of the property of the Municipal Committee, which was admittedly not obtained in the present case. So far as the lease deed dated 19-5-1960 is concerned, its period has already ended and there was no question of its specific performance Admittedly, it was for ten years and under the renewal clause it could be renewed for a further period of ten years which stood expired on 18-5-1980. 5. On the other hand, Sh. Bhupender Gupta, learned Counsel for Arjan Singh, refuting these arguments has urged that the Counsel for Municipal Committee, Solan, may not be permitted to raise this plea in this appeal that contracts were void as its Counsel before the trial Court had already conceded it. According to Mr. Bhupender Gupta, sanction, if required, was only a formality and could not render the lease dated 5-8-1961 invalid. He has submitted that, in fact, sanction was also granted by the Government at a later stage and the transaction stood regularised. 6. Mr. Bhupender Gupta has further submitted that discretion exercised by both the courts below in directing the specific performance of the lease deeds should not be interfered with in this appeal. For making this submission, he has relied upon AIR 1946 Nagpur 139, Ramrao Shamrao v. Suganchandra and another, and AIR 1954 TC 440, Simon Jacob Silas v. Casper John Balthasar Kohihoff. 7. It is correct that on the preliminary objection taken by the Municipal Committee, the trial Court has framed a specific issue No. 2 that "whether the lease agreements are void, if so, its effect ? O. P. D ". There are documents Ex P-I and Ex. P-N details of which will be given later and the statement of Sh. 7. It is correct that on the preliminary objection taken by the Municipal Committee, the trial Court has framed a specific issue No. 2 that "whether the lease agreements are void, if so, its effect ? O. P. D ". There are documents Ex P-I and Ex. P-N details of which will be given later and the statement of Sh. S. S. Parmar (DW 1), the sole witness of Municipal Committee, Solan, on record to prove that the Government had taken the objection that the Municipal Committee could not grant lease for more than ten years Despite this and instead of showing the provisions of Rule 3 of the H. P. Municipal Properties Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1971) under which prior sanction of the Deputy Commissioner is required for granting lease for more than ten years, the Counsel for Municipal Committee, Solan, conceded this issue. Mr K D Sood, learned Counsel, has submitted that since despite concession the trial Court had proceeded to decide the issue and held that lease was valid, this Court should examine the point and give its findings. There is substance in this submission Moreover, I find that this point that lease deeds, Ex P-A and Ex. P-B, were not enforceable was reagitated before the District Judge, who has rejected the same on the ground that the Counsel for the Municipal Committee failed to point out any material on record to show that the Municipal Committee could not enter into the said lease deeds. Had Rule 3 of the Rules of 1971 been pointed out to the District Judge, his decision might have been different Moreover, this point goes to the root of the case, therefore, I proceed to examine it on merit. For granting a decree for specific performance, the first requisite is legal and valid contract. Rule 3 of the Rules of 1971 is as under :— "3. Procedure for alienation of municipal properties (1) Any municipality proposing to alienate permanently or for a term exceeding ten years any land or immovable property of which it is the owner shall apply to the Deputy Commissioner for sanction (2) An application under rule (I) shall be accompanied by a plan of the properties to be alienated together with a statement in the form appended to these rules. (3) The Deputy Commissioner shall record an order on the application— (i) sanctioning it (subject to such conditions, if any, as he thinks fit), or (ii) refusing to sanction it, provided that no sale by auction shall be valid until it has been confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. (4) When the Deputy Commissioner has accorded sanction to a sale by auction, the statement aforesaid shall in due course be resubmitted to him with the details regarding the auction which are shown in the form printed on the reverse of the statement and the Deputy Commissioner shall thereon either confirm the sale or refuse to confirm it If the Deputy Commissioner refuses to confirm the sale, the same shall be void. (5) Any orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Rules 3 and 4 shall subject to the provisions of section 252 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1968, be final." 8. The Rules of 1971 are framed by the Governor of Himachal Pradesh in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 255 and 273 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1968 (hereinafter called the Act). Under section 255 (1) (o) of the Act the State Government is empowered, in particular, to make rules as to conditions on which the property vested in Municipal Committee can be transferred by sale, mortgage, lease, exchange or otherwise. The Rules so made should be consistent with the Act to carry out the purpose thereof. Sections 45 and 46 of the Act provide for authority to contract and mode of executing contracts and transfer of property of the Municipal Committee. For executing valid lease of the property of Municipal Committee, provisions of sections 45 and 46 of the Act and Rules of 1971 are required to be complied with, whereas in the present case. Rule 3 of the Rules of 1971 has not been complied with. Obviously, the result is that the lease dated 5-8-1961, Ex. P-B, is not legal and valid Compliance of Rule 3 of the Roles of 1971 is not a formality as alleged by Mr Bhupender Gupta5 learned Counsel for Arjan Singh. If mode or procedure to perform a particular act is prescribed in !aw6 it is required to be performed in that mode or procedure only It is true that much depends upon the purpose which is intended to be achieved by providing a particular mode or procedure. If mode or procedure to perform a particular act is prescribed in !aw6 it is required to be performed in that mode or procedure only It is true that much depends upon the purpose which is intended to be achieved by providing a particular mode or procedure. In the present case, Rule 3 of the Rules of 1971 has been made with an apparent public purpose to keep check and supervision of Deputy Commissioner over the property of the Municipal Committee which undoubtedly is public property. 9. Now, the question arises whether any ipso facto sanction was granted by the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, which validated the lease, Ex. P-B. The earliest document on record is notice dated 19-2-1970,, Ex, P.O, which Arjan Singh, through his Counsel, served upon the Municipal Committee in reply to its letter dated 23/24-1-1970. From the contents of this notice it is clear that when the Government had pointed out to the Municipal Committee that the lease deed, Ex. P-B, was not legal and valid for want of prior sanction of the Deputy Commissioner, the Municipal Committee had asked Arjan Singh to vacate the premises in dispute at the end of lease period of ten years as provided in the first lease deed dated 19-5-1960, Ex. P-A. By this notice, he had also requested the Government to get requisite sanction to regularise the matter It seems on receipt of this notice, the Municipal Committee recommended the case of Arjan Singh to the then Minister for Local Self Government vide its letter dated 15-5-1970, Ex P-l. No document has been placed on record to show what directions were made by the Government on letter Ex P-i. But on ibis letter there is an endorsement by the then Transport Minister, Sh Hari Ram, who was also the Minister for Local Self Government to the President of Municipal Committee, Solan, that "According to the agreement, lessee is allowed to stay on upto 1980 " There is another representation dated 15-3-1971, Ex P-N, of Arjan Singh on record again made to the then Minister for Local Self Government wherein he had prayed that the Municipal Committee might be stopped from auctioning the premises in dispute and disturbing his possession From this representation, it is clear that no ipso facto sanction was granted by the competent authority and the Municipal Committees was proceeding with the matter. Again, except an endorsement by Sh Hari Ram, the then Minister for Local Self Government that " ..according to the terms of the lease dated 5-8-1960 the lessee is legally entitled to stay upto J980 Even further he can stay if he so desires Any auction of the lease now will be illegal", there is nothing on record to show that any step was taken to regularise the lease, Ex. P-B. This conclusion is further supported by another notice dated 21-10-1975, Ex. P-M, whereby Arjan Singh wrote to the Municipal Committee in reply to its letter dated 4-10-1975 that the Committee might negotiate with him for the payment of compensation in case it wanted vacant possession of the premises in dispute. 10. it seems after this notice, the Municipal Committee took no action till 22-3-1980 when it passed the resolution, Ex. D~Y, that the premises in dispute were required by it for the public purpose of development of bus-stand etc, therefore, notice be Issued to Arjan Singh for handing over the possession of the suit premises In pursuance of the resolution, notices dated 9-4-1980 and 4-6-1980, Ex. DA and Ex D-B were issued. On coming to know of the resolution, Arjan Singh hurried to give notice dated 24-3-1980, Ex P-D exercising his option for the renewal of the lease deed and stating that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract for renewal of the lease deed Thereafter, he hurried to deposit the lease money of Rs. 420, on 25-3- 1980, for the year 1980-81 receipt whereof is Ex. P-E On receipt of the notice dated 9-4-1980, Ex. D-A, Arjan Singh also gave notice dated 21-4-1980, Ex. P-F, through his Counsel asking the Municipal Committee to execute new lease deed for a further period of twenty years commencing from 19-5-1980 to 18-5-2000 A D. within one month The Municipal Committee did not concede to the request and gave further notice dated 4-6-1980, Ex. D-A, Arjan Singh also gave notice dated 21-4-1980, Ex. P-F, through his Counsel asking the Municipal Committee to execute new lease deed for a further period of twenty years commencing from 19-5-1980 to 18-5-2000 A D. within one month The Municipal Committee did not concede to the request and gave further notice dated 4-6-1980, Ex. D-B, to Arjan Singh to hand over the possession of the premises in dispute within fifteen days failing which ejectment proceedings would be taken On receipt of this notice, Arjan Singh proceeded to file the suit out of which the present appeal has arisen, From these documents on record it is clear that at no point of time the competent authority gave its sanction in accordance with Rule 3 of the Rules of 1971 to lease out the premises in dispute to Arjan Singh, The result is that the lease deed dated 3-8-1961, Ex. PB, continued to be illegal and invalid and equitable relief of specific performance cannot be awarded in case of such a lease. 11. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Counsel for Arjan Singh, has cited AIR 1970 AP 19, Syed Jalal and others v. Targopal Ram Reddy and others, AIR 1971 All 444, Pahunchi Lal v, Man Singh, and AIR 1973 MP 281, Nimar Industrial Corporation Private Ltd. Khandwa v. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, Jabalpur, to urge that violation of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1971 is not such a defect for which relief of specific performance of lease dated 5-8-1961, Ex. P-B, should be refused These cases are distinguishable on their facts. In all the three cases, each agreement to sell, whose specific performance was sought for, was found valid by the respective High Court. Interpreting the law applicable in each case or the clauses of agreement in each case, the respective High Court has held that if for executing sale-deed, some sort of permission from some authority is required, the decree for specific performance may be granted subject to such permission. In the present case, the lease deed whose renewal is sought for is found invalid as one of its parties, that is, the Municipal Committee, was not competent to execute it without the prior sanction of the Deputy Commissioner as provided under Rule 3 of the Rules of 1971. In the present case, the lease deed whose renewal is sought for is found invalid as one of its parties, that is, the Municipal Committee, was not competent to execute it without the prior sanction of the Deputy Commissioner as provided under Rule 3 of the Rules of 1971. Therefore, the discretion exercised by both the courts below in directing renewal of lease deed dated 5-8-1961 Ex, P-B by way of specific performance is bad. The ratio of judgments in Ramrao Shamrao v. Suganchandra and another (supra) and Simon Jacob Silas v. Casper John Balthasar Kohlhoff, (supra) does not apply in the present case. 12. In view of these findings, the other arguments of Mr. K. D. Sood, learned Counsel for the Municipal Committee, including the argument that lease deed was determinable as the premises were required for public purpose or damages were adequate relief need not be considered. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the decree and judgment dated 23-10-1982 passed by the District Judge, Solan and Sirmaur Districts at Solan and the decree and judgment dated 26-9-1981 passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Solan, are set aside The suit of Arjan Singh plaintiff is dismissed. The Municipal Committee may proceed in accordance with law for getting the premises In dispute vacated. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.