Satish Chandra, J.;- This revision has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 03.07.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court no. 10, Lucknow in SCC Suit No. 59 of 2008 (Govind Lal Arora and others v. M/s. Dena Bank and another) by which the suit was decreed in favour of the opposite parties. 2. Sri Pratish Kumar holding brief of Sri Rajeev Sharan learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the court below committed a manifest error of law by decreeing the suit and failed to consider the facts and law as the opposite parties have themselves admitted in para- 10 of the suit that tenancy was on month to month basis as per provision of Section 116 of Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as T.P. Act) and if the tenancy is as per provisions of Section 116 of the T. P. Act then the tenancy can only be terminated as per the provisions of Section 106 of the T.P. Act. Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act runs as under: 116. Effect of holding over - If a lessee or under- lessee of property remains in possession thereof after the determination of the lease granted to the lessee, and the lessor or his legal representative accepts rent from the lessee or under-lessee or otherwise assents to his continuing in possession the lease is, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, renewed from year to year, or from month to month, according to the purpose for which the property is leased, as specified in Section 106. 3. Learned counsel also submits that merely asking for the vacant possession does not amount to terminate the lease deed and in the instant case, admittedly, the opposite parties have demanded the vacant possession and the tenancy was not specifically terminated by notice under Section 106 of T. P. Act. The notice issued for vacating the premises is bad in the eyes of law and cannot be treated as notice under Section 106 of T.P. Act. 4. The notice issued for vacating the premises is bad in the eyes of law and cannot be treated as notice under Section 106 of T.P. Act. 4. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the revisionist has relied on a ratio laid down by this Court at Allahabad in Civil Revision No. 192 of 1997; Central Bank of India v. Manohar Lal and others decided on 20.08.1997 where the Hon'ble Court has held as under: "The effect of holding over is that the tenancy in the absence of contract to the contrary shall be deemed to have been renewed from year to year or from month to month according to the purpose for which the property is leased as a specified in Section 106 of T.P. Act. The purpose of the lease was neither for agricultural nor for manufacturing purpose. If it was a lease for any other purpose, then the nature of lease which stood renewed as a result of holding over will be a lease from month to month. It may also be mentioned that there is no agreement between the parties to the contrary. It may further be mentioned that in the lease the rent was payable monthly and it was not a case where the landlord reserved yearly rent. Consequently, on the basis of the case and in view of Sections 106 and 116 of Transfer of Property Act renewed case will be monthly lease which could be terminated by month's notice." 5. He also relied on the ratio laid down in the case of Mahendra Kumar v. Smt. Pushpawati VII (Dead) now Harbansh Lal VII and another; 2003 (52) ALR 129. Thus, the finding given in the impugned order is perverse and is liable to be set aside. He again submits the Court below exceeded in its jurisdiction to award the damages @Rs.2000/- per day, without any basis, evidence and pleadings on record. For this purpose, he relied on the ratio laid down in the case of Ahmad Ali vs. Mohd. Jamal Uddin; AIR 1963 Alld. 581 (V 50 C 169) where it was observed as under: "A notice terminating the tenancy may include a demand for possession but a notice only demanding possession cannot be interpreted as a notice terminating the tenancy." 6. Lastly, he made a request that the impugned order dated 03.07.2010 may kindly be set aside. 7. Jamal Uddin; AIR 1963 Alld. 581 (V 50 C 169) where it was observed as under: "A notice terminating the tenancy may include a demand for possession but a notice only demanding possession cannot be interpreted as a notice terminating the tenancy." 6. Lastly, he made a request that the impugned order dated 03.07.2010 may kindly be set aside. 7. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and gone through the material available on record. 8. From the record, it appears that revisionist bank took on rent only the ground floor of the premises bearing no. 3/107 Vidhayak Puram, Vinay Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow from the opposite party w.e.f. 16.06.1998 for a period of ten years vide registered lease deed which was executed on 24.07.2008. The rent was Rs.16,308/- per month and area was 2718 sq. ft. The lease came to an end on 15.06.2008 but the premises was not vacated peacefully. So, the opposite parties have given a legal notice dated 09.07.2008 where in class-5, it was mentioned that peaceful possession of the premises was not handed over to the opposite parties and balance rent was also not paid as the lease has already been expired on 15.06.2008. So, in clause-9 of the notice, it was stated that the damages @Rs.2500/- per day will be charged. 9. From the above, it appears that the opposite parties were vigilant about their rights to get their premises vacated after the expiry of lease deed. In the impugned order, it is mentioned that the Bank has claimed that after the expiry of lease deed on 15.06.2008, the lease deed was extended for another five years i.e. up to 15.06.2013 but no documentary evidence was ever filed before the court below or even before this Court. 10. It may be mentioned that the lease was never renewed after its expiry on 15.06.2008 either on year to year basis or month to month basis. The provision of T.P. Act is applicable in absence of any contract or local liability or usage to the contrary but in the instant case, there was specific lease deed, which expired on 15.06.2008 and the notice issued by the opposite parties is a valid notice. 11. In the instant case, it is a contractual liability of the revisionist to vacate the said premises on expiry of the lease deed on 15.06.2008. 11. In the instant case, it is a contractual liability of the revisionist to vacate the said premises on expiry of the lease deed on 15.06.2008. The revisionist cannot adopt delayed tactics for not vacating the premises in question. For over staying in the premises illegally after expiry of the lease period, the damages/penal rent is already fixed by the Additional District Judge @Rs.2000/- per day, which appears reasonable. Hence, I decline to interfere with the impugned order, which is hereby sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein. 12. The revision being devoid of merit is accordingly, dismissed.