T. N VALLINAYAGAM, J. ( 1 ) PLAINTIFF is the appellant. The suit for injunction in O. S. No. 130/84 was decreed by the munsiff and Additional JMFC, Tarikere on 22. 10. 86. On appeal in R. A. No. 51/86, the learned civil Judge, Tarikere, dismissed the appeal by judgment and decree dated 5. 2. 1987 confirming the decree the trial Court. Hence, the appeal by the plaintiff. ( 2 ) PLAINTIFF claims permanent injunction on the ground that he has been in possession and cultivation of the suit land which is 1 acre and 20 guntas in Sy. No. 29 and 30. According to him he has taken the same on lease from the Executive Engineer No. 4, B. R. L. B. C. Division, bhadravath. Plaintiff has been cultivating the suit land since 18 to 20 years after investing heavy money to bring the same fit for cultivation. He has been paying lease amount to defendant No. 2. As usual the plaintiff cultivated the suit land in 1984. The defendant gave a notice on 27. 9. 84 asking him to vacate the land. On 2. 11. 84 the second defendant sent his men to the suit land and they tresspassed upon the suit land and told the plaintiff that the second defendant will not allow him to reap paddy grown by the plaintiff and attempted to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land. Therefore, the suit is filed for injunction. ( 3 ) THE defendants who are the Chief Secretary to Government of Karnataka and the Assistant executive Engineer No. 4. B. R. L. in Bhadravathi Taluk, while admitting the possession of the plaintiff contended that the plaintiff cannot claim to be lessee but only as licensee. The right to cultivate for 11 months from June to May of each year was being auctioned. In pursuance of the notification dated 24. 5. 71 the second defendant invited applications from the public for giving the land for temporary cultivation in strict compliance of the conditions stipulated in the notification and also under the provisions of Section 206 of the Karnataka Public Works departmental Code relating to cultivation of lands belonging to the department. In pursuance of the notification dated 24. 5. 71 the second defendant invited applications from the public for giving the land for temporary cultivation in strict compliance of the conditions stipulated in the notification and also under the provisions of Section 206 of the Karnataka Public Works departmental Code relating to cultivation of lands belonging to the department. The defendant did not dispose off by auction the right of cultivation for the year 1984-85 and the plaintiff by taking advantage of the fact that he was an employee of the department, tresspassed on the suit land and attempted to cultivate the same. He has no right to cultivate the same and the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. The Courts below dismissed the suit. ( 4 ) THE learned Munsiff dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land only as licencee and not as lessee. The appellate Court on appeal held that the right of cultivation of Sy. No. 29 and 30 was auctioned every year by the department. A notification has been produced under Ex. D. 1. The plaintiff did not pay the amount for the year 1983-84. Infact he was in possession of the earlier year. A notice was issued for recovery of the money due from the plaintiff. As the plaintiff unauthorisedly cultivated the land for the year 1984-85 a notice was issued to the plaintiff as per Ex. P. 23. As the suit land was required for the department the right of cultivation was not auctioned after issuing such notice. Though the plaintiff claims to be a lessee he has not specifically pleaded what are the terms and conditions of the lease deed, but on examination-in-chief he would say that the yearly lease amount is Rs. 337/ -. But even that is not pleaded in the plaint. As per Ex. D. 1 the notification, it is clear that the Executive Engineer directed auction of the right of cultivation of some lands including the suit land for 11 months. Therefore, the appellate Court held that there is no relationship of lessor and lessee and plaintiff is only in permissive occupation of the suit land as a licencee. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed. Therefore, the appellate Court held that there is no relationship of lessor and lessee and plaintiff is only in permissive occupation of the suit land as a licencee. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed. ( 5 ) IT was contended before me that the Courts below are not right in holding that the grant in question is not a lease but only a licence and in any event, in view of the admitted fact of possession, the decree for injunction ought to have been granted by the courts below. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel relied upon Ex. D. 1 which is very clear that the lands are given for temporary cultivation during the year 1971-72. The conditions of such auction by inviting tenders was also mentioned in the said notice. Clause (6) of those conditions reads as follows: "the lessee shall relinquish the land when required by the department at a short notice without claiming any compensation. " The fact that the plaintiff came into possession of the property only under Ex. D. 1 cannot be disputed and is also not disputed. Once the auction is made by the Government and when the parties are governed by the notification and the rules made thereunder, it is not open to the plaintiff to claim that notwithstanding the fact that he has not participated in the auction or that the property has not been granted to him by the Government, he shall be permitted to continue possession for ever and his possession should be permitted by the Court, I am afraid much argument cannot be entertained. The Mysore Public Works Departmental Code issued by the public Works Department, Government of Mysore Section 206 (a) and in particular Clause (v) reads; "leasing of Lands: Section 206 (a) Land which have been acquired by the Department but cannot be immediately used for the purpose for which they are intended or those which for administrative purpose are in-charge of public works Department may be given on lease to private bodies, associations, companies or individuals, etc. , for temporary occupation, for agricultural or non-agricultural purposes, in consultation with the Revenue Department where necessary in the following cases; a) Lease of lands acquired but not required for immediate use for cultivation purposes. b) Lease of lands in tank basins for cultivation. The following conditions should be served; i) ii ). . . . iii ). . . , for temporary occupation, for agricultural or non-agricultural purposes, in consultation with the Revenue Department where necessary in the following cases; a) Lease of lands acquired but not required for immediate use for cultivation purposes. b) Lease of lands in tank basins for cultivation. The following conditions should be served; i) ii ). . . . iii ). . . iv ). . . . v) that the lessee should relinquish the lands when required by Government at a short notice without claiming any compensation. Notification is issued under this code. The fact remained that the plaintiff continued to be in occupation for the past over 13 years. Neither counsel is able to say whether during the period, any amount was paid by the plaintiff to the Government. It is clear therefore, the plaintiff is in wrongful possession of the property and his permission for temporary cultivation had ended under the provisions of the Code as weli as under Notification Ex. D. 1 subsequent to 1971-72. It is submitted by the learned counsel that there is auction every year and the plaintiff after taking part in the auction obtained the possession of the property by virtue of being the highest bidder. Therefore, every year it came to end and then continued by virtue of fresh auction conducted every year. The plaintiff has suppressed this material fact in the plaint. In my opinion the plaintiff cannot be allowed to enjoy the Government land without paying the amount due and having entered into the land subject to the conditions to which a mention is made under the auction notice, he cannot turn round to say that "i am continuing in possession and I shall not be dispossessed except by decree for possession or after giving show cause notice etc. " This stand cannot be appreciated by any Court. Therefore, confirming the findings of the courts below, the second appeal is dismissed.