Judgment Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. Smt. Asha Chachra, wife of Late Narendra Kumar Chachra of Jugsalai (Jamshadpur) is the owner of the building situated over plot No. 1823 under khata No. 384 at station road. She inducted M/s. Pessa (India) Private Limited as a tenant in the premises, consisting of two rooms measuring 364.83 sq. pt (Approx), on the main roadside at monthly rent of Rs. 800.00 . The tenant paid a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 as security money, which was refundable with interest, whenever vacant possession of the premises was demanded and on the other hand if the tenant handed over vacant possession to the landlady on or before the stipulated period, they were entitled to demand the said security money from the landly without interest after giving three months advance notice for the said purpose. On 2.3.1983 a registered lease was executed between the parties and the tenancy was creates for a fixed period of ten years, commencing from the 1st of February, 1983 and ending on the expiry of the 31st day of January, 1993. Unless the tenancy was renewed or extended on mutual agreement, the tenant was required to deliver, vacant possession of the premises to the landlady without any let or hindrances on the expiry of the lease period. 2. On 14.7.1992 the landlady claimed to have sent a notice and informed the tenant that she would not renew the lease for any further period after its expiry on 31.1.1993. It was also indicated in the said notice that if the tenant failed to write to her their intention for renewal of the lease within fifteen days of September, 1992, she would presume that they were no more interested in the matter of the Lease and accordingly would make arrangement to refund the security deposit of Rs. 50,000.00 to them at the time the premises is vacated. The landlady did not receive any such request from the tenant and as such on 25.9.1992 sent notice to then to vacate the premises by 31.1.1993 and to receive the security money. In reply to the said notice dated 25.9.1992 the tenant requested for renewal of the Lease and did not vacate the premises on the expiry of the period of Lease. 3. In reply to the said notice dated 25.9.1992 the tenant requested for renewal of the Lease and did not vacate the premises on the expiry of the period of Lease. 3. The plaintiff, therefore, filed Eviction Suit No. 56 of 1993 in the court of Munsif, Jamshedpur for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises described in detail in Schedule A to the plaint under Sec. 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (Hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 4. According to the defendants, who contested the suit, they neither received any notice dated 14.7.1992 nor any information that the plaintiff would not renew the Lease for further period. The plaintiff failed to give any notice as required under Clause 7 of the Lease. As per Clause 7, in case the landlady wanted not to keep the tenant in the premises, she was required to give such notice to the tenant six months before the expiry period of Lease. In absence of such notice the defendants were under a bonafide impression that the Lease has been renewed and extended for further period. Though after 31.1.1993 no fresh lease was executed, but since the plaintiff accepted rent thereafter, a fresh tenancy was created. The defendants were running their business, by opening showroom and had already spent Rs. 2,50,000.00 for renovation, modification, alteration and internal decoration to make Schedule A premises an attractive and suitable showroom with the consent of the plaintiff. Defendants remitted the rent for suit premises from the month of February 1993 but the plaintiff refused to accept the same. 5. The plaintiff examined three witnesses. P.W. 1 is the plaintiff herself. She has proved her signature on the carbon copy of the notice dated 14.7.1992, which was marked as Ext. 1 P.W. 2 has proved the carbon copy of the notice dated 25.9.1992 (Ext. 2) and its postal registration receipt (Ext. 3). P.W. 3 is the son of the plaintiff, who has proved the carbon copy of the notice dated 14.6.1992 (Ext. 4) and its certificate of posting (Ext. 5). The original registered deed of Lease dated 2.3.1983 has been marked as Ext. 6 P W. 1 stated that the notice dated 14.7.1992 was sent by her eldest son P.W. 3, which was corroborated by P.W. 3. From the notice dated 14.7.1992 (Ext. 4) and its certificate of posting (Ext. 5). The original registered deed of Lease dated 2.3.1983 has been marked as Ext. 6 P W. 1 stated that the notice dated 14.7.1992 was sent by her eldest son P.W. 3, which was corroborated by P.W. 3. From the notice dated 14.7.1992 (Ext. 4) it transpires that Sujit Kumar Bose, defendants No. 2 was informed that the plaintiff intended not to renew the lease for any further period after its expiry and if the defendants failed to write to her anything regarding the lease within 15 days of September 1992, she would presume that the defendants had no more intention to renew the lease and she would make arrangement for payment of security deposit at the time of vacating of the suit premises. 6. On the other hand the defendants have examined two witnesses. D.W. 1 is Sujit Kumar Bose, defendant No. 2 himself. He has proved the carbon copy of reply letter dated 14.10.1992 (Ext. 1), postal registration receipt (Ext. B), typed address on the acknowledgement due (Ext. C), Carbon copy of the letter dated 13.3.1993 (Ext. D) and Carbon copy of the letter dated 16.12.1992 for reriewal of tenancy (Ext. D/1). D.W. 2 has proved three money order coupons Exts. E.E/1 and E/2 as well as three postal receipts thereof, which were marked as Exts. F.F/1 and F/2. D.W. 1 stated that since the plaintiff failed to serve any notice on the defendants as stipulated in Clause 7 of the deed of lease, the defendant were under the bondfide impression that the lease in respect of the suit premises has been renewed and extended for further period after expiry of the original lease period and now the tenancy has became month to month. 7. The trial court held that although the plaintiff failed to establish the fact that notice dated 14.7.1992 (Ext. 2) was issued and served on the defendants, but non service of such notice within the stipulated period under the deed of lease would not amount to renewal of the lease deed. After expiry of the lease period the defendants have not became month to month tenant. The plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to a decree for eviction on the ground of expiry of fixed period of tenancy. After expiry of the lease period the defendants have not became month to month tenant. The plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to a decree for eviction on the ground of expiry of fixed period of tenancy. Accordingly by Judgment/Order dated 27.8.1994 the suit was decreed on contest with cost and the defendants were directed to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff within a period of sixty days, viz. by 27.10.1994. 8. Admittedly the lease was for a fixed period of 10 years and unless the said tenancy was renewed or extended on mutual arrangement, the tenant was required to deliver vacant possession thereof to the landlady without any let or hinderance on the expiry of lease period. Although in the lease deed it was provided that after expiry of the lease if the landlady wanted not to keep the tenant, she had option to give legal notice to the tenant six months before, but failure to give such notice would not amount to automatic renewal of lease and further extension of the period of tenancy. Admittedly period of tenancy after expiry of the lease on 31.1.1993 was neither renewed nor extended on mutual arrangement. 9. It is well settled that under Sec. 11(1)(e) of the Act where the tenancy is not a monthly tenancy and tenant is holding on a lease for a specified period, the tenant is liable to eviction on the expiry of the period of the tenancy. If a tenant, however, intended to extend the period limited by such lease, it was necessary for him to take proceedings as provided under Sec. 18 of the Act. 10. Sec. 18 of the Act requires that when a building has been leased out for a limited time and the tenant wants to extend time limited by such lease, he should give the landlord a written notice of his intention at least one month before the expiry of the time. The period of lease cannot be extended except in the manner laid down in Sec. 18. 11. In the instant case, although as provided under lease, the period of tenancy could have been renewed : extended on mutual arrangement, but it was not done. The period of lease cannot be extended except in the manner laid down in Sec. 18. 11. In the instant case, although as provided under lease, the period of tenancy could have been renewed : extended on mutual arrangement, but it was not done. In such a situation, if the defendants intended to extend the period limited by such lease and to occupy the suit premises even after expiry of the lease on 31.1.1993, they were required to take proceedings as provided in Sec. 18 of the Act and thereby the tenancy could have been extended to a maximum period of one year only. 12. There is no dispute at all about the period of the lease. All that has been contended is that in absence of a notice, six months before the expiry period of the lease by the landlady about her intention not to renew the lease as per Clause 7 of the Lease, the lease shall be deemed to have been renewed and extended for further period and therefore the defendants have became month to month tenant. In my opinion, even if as per Clause 7, the plaintiff failed to serve such notice on the defendants, it cannot be said that as a result thereof, after expiry of the period of lease on 31.1.1993, the tenancy either stood renewed or extended automatically. No doubt under Clause 3 of the lease, renewal or extension of the tenancy was provided on mutual arrangement, after the expiry of lease period, but the admitted position is that it was not done on mutual arrangement, Under Clause 7 an option was given to the plaintiff to give a notice to the defendants, in case she intended not to extend the period of lease, but even after such notice the defendants were not stopped to persuade the landlady for extension of the lease on mutual arrangement. On the other hand if no such notice was given by the plaintiff this would not mean that the defendants were not required to take steps for extension on mutual arrangement and the lease would be deemed to have been renewed automatically for further period. At any rate it cannot be said that by not exercising her option as provided under Clause 7 the plaintiff accepted the defendants as month to month tenant after expiry of the period of lease. 13. At any rate it cannot be said that by not exercising her option as provided under Clause 7 the plaintiff accepted the defendants as month to month tenant after expiry of the period of lease. 13. In my opinion, since the period of tenancy could not be extended in the instant case on mutual arrangement, the only course open for the defendants was to take recourse to the proceedings as provided under Sec. 18 of the Act, by which the life of tenancy could have been extended for one year more. Even if the defendants letter dated 16.12.1992 (Ext. D/1) for renewal of lease be taken to be a notice under Sec. 18 of the Act, the said one years extended period also expired on 31.1.1994 and the defendants can not taken any advantage now. 14. In the facts and circumstances stated above I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned Judgment/Order. In my concluded opinion the eviction suit has rightly been decreed under Sec. 11(1)(e) of t he Act. 15. In the result this Civil Revision application is dismissed and the impugned Judgment/Order dated 27.8.1994 passed by the Munsif, Jamshedpur in Eviction Suit No. 56 of 1993 is hereby confirmed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.