Judgment :- 1. Heard the submissions made by Mr.S.Sethuraman, learned counsel representing the appellant who was the plaintiff in the original suit before the trial Court and the appellant before the first appellate Court. 2. Admittedly, the suit A schedule and B schedule properties belong to the respondent Municipality. The suit A schedule property was originally leased out to the appellant herein for a period of three years from 01.01.1994 to 31.12.1996 by conducting public auction. The said A schedule property was taken on lease by the appellant for running a hotel. As the A schedule property was facing a small lane, the appellant wanted to have an entrance from the Bazaar Street. Hence the suit B schedule property was also allowed to be used by the appellant as an annex to the original lease hold property, namely the plaint A schedule property on payment of an additional rent of Rs.450/- per month. By efflux of time, the lease in favour of the appellant came to an end on 31.12.1996. The appellant who chose to surrender the A schedule property on 31.12.1996 continued to occupy the plaint B schedule property. It was the contention of the respondent that at the time of allowing the appellant to use the suit B schedule property as an appurtenant to the A schedule property originally leased out to the appellant, specific conditions were imposed to the effect that no construction should be made on the B schedule property and that as and when demanded by the respondent Municipality, the B schedule property should also be surrendered. While so, since the appellant failed to surrender the B schedule property along with the A" schedule property on the expiry of lease, the respondent Municipality took steps to evict the appellant from the B schedule property, for which a notice dated 16.10.1998 marked as Ex.A.17 was also issued. After the receipt of the said notice, the appellant gave a letter dated 27.10.1998 marked as Ex.B.1 undertaking to vacate and surrender B schedule property within 15 days thereafter. However, the appellant chose to file the present suit for a bare injunction against the respondent Municipality not to disturb his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the B schedule property by taking coercive steps to evict the appellant. 3. However, the appellant chose to file the present suit for a bare injunction against the respondent Municipality not to disturb his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the B schedule property by taking coercive steps to evict the appellant. 3. The learned District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakanur tried the matter after framing the following two issues:- "(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief of permanent injunction? and (ii) What is the other relief?." On an appreciation of evidence, the learned District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakanur came to the conclusion that the lease in respect of both the items of the suit properties had come to an end on 31.12.1996 and hence, the appellant/plaintiff was not entitled either to continue in possession of the B schedule property or to seek the equitable relief of perpetual injunction against the respondent Municipality. In view of the said conclusion arrived at, the learned District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakanur non-suited the plaintiff and dismissed the suit with cost. The said judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif -cum-Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakanur was unsuccessfully challenged by the appellant herein before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.4), Periyakulam. The learned appellate Judge concurred with the finding recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal with cost. Hence, the appellant is before this Court in this second appeal. 4. Admittedly, the suit A schedule property was originally taken on lease by the appellant/plaintiff for running a hotel for a period of three years from 01.01.1994. As the said property was facing a small lane, the appellant found it inconvenient to run the hotel business profitably. Hence he wanted the B schedule property which is a small portion abutting A schedule property on the other side to be annexed to the original lease so that, the same could be used as an entrance to the hotel with the result that the hotel will be facing the busy Bazaar Street. The said request was conceded by the respondent Municipality on the understanding that an additional rent of Rs.450/- per month should be paid. The very purpose, for which the B schedule property was also given on lease to the appellant herein, was for the convenient enjoyment of the A schedule property for the hotel business of the appellant. The said request was conceded by the respondent Municipality on the understanding that an additional rent of Rs.450/- per month should be paid. The very purpose, for which the B schedule property was also given on lease to the appellant herein, was for the convenient enjoyment of the A schedule property for the hotel business of the appellant. It is pertinent to note that while granting lease in respect of the B schedule property, the procedure of conducting public auction was not followed. All these factors would go to show that though the lease in respect of A schedule and B schedule properties were granted on different dates, the lease cannot be construed as two separate leases. 5. The Courts below have arrived at a correct conclusion that the B schedule property was also allowed to be enjoyed by the appellant as an addition to the lease of the A schedule property and hence, the lease in respect of the A schedule and B schedule properties became a single unified lease. It is also not in dispute that the B schedule property was allowed to be enjoyed by the appellant as an entrance to the hotel of the appellant from the main Bazaar Street. As such, on the expiry of the lease period on 31.12.1996, the appellant should have surrendered the B schedule property also along with the A schedule property. On the other hand, the appellant, who chose to surrender the A schedule property, failed to surrender the B schedule property which was given as an amenity for the better enjoyment of the A schedule property. The same necessitated the respondent Municipality to take steps for eviction of the appellant from the B schedule property. Even then, the appellant admittedly gave an undertaking letter on 27.10.1998 agreeing to surrender vacant possession of the B schedule property. 6. Under these circumstances, when the lease has come to an end and the appellant himself has given such an undertaking letter to surrender the possession of the B schedule property, this Court finds no error or infirmity in the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the appellant is not entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for. This Court is not in a position to find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal. This Court is not in a position to find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this Second Appeal deserves to be rejected at the stage of admission itself. 7. In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to payment of costs as the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission itself. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2007 is also dismissed.