K.Kannan, J. (Oral);— 1. Reply to the application for vacation of stay order dated 04.01.2002 filed in Court on behalf of the petitioner, is taken on record. 2. With the consent of both the parties, the writ petition itself is advanced and taken up for final disposal. 3. In a petition for eviction filed under the Public Premises Act, the contention by the tenant was that he had been willing to pay the lease and the point of dispute was only the quantum of lease. The petitioner, who claimed as a tenant, was urging that the amount payable was Rs.4,300/- per year, but it was held by the authorities below that he was liable to pay Rs.9,040/- per acre which was the market rent. This amount also, the petitioner claimed that he had paid to the respondents. The challenge to the order which was passed is that when the Commissioner directed the lease to be paid, he was in error in affirming the decision of the Collector, who directed that he shall hand over the possession of the property after harvesting the wheat crop to the highest bidder for the year 2011-12. The petitioner's contention is that he is entitled to continue in possession, so long as the possession is not unauthorized. The learned counsel would contend that without a finding of the petitioner being in unauthorized occupation, an order of ejectment itself could not have been passed under the Public Premises Act. 4. It is an admitted case that the initial spell of lease which was granted to the petitioner has expired and he had been allowed to be in possession from time to time when the Municipal Committee was receiving the rent. It is an admitted fact again that the Municipal Committee refused to receive the rent and had resorted to an action for eviction under the Public Premises Act on the ground that the petitioner was an unauthorized occupation. If the quantum of lease was an issue for dispute and when the amount had been paid also, according to the petitioner, the receipt of amount itself must give rise to a situation of a subsisting relationship of landlord and tenant and, therefore, the petitioner could not be said to be unlawful occupant for an ejectment. 5. If the quantum of lease was an issue for dispute and when the amount had been paid also, according to the petitioner, the receipt of amount itself must give rise to a situation of a subsisting relationship of landlord and tenant and, therefore, the petitioner could not be said to be unlawful occupant for an ejectment. 5. In my view, the payment of rent and the receipt by the landlord cannot, at all times, be assumed to be creating a fresh lease. If the principle of Section 116 were to be applied, the tenant could be said to be a tenant holding over in only if the rent is received by the landlord with an intent to renew the tenancy. An amount that is directed to be deposited by an authority and compelled to receive by the landlord by itself cannot create the tenancy if the period of tenancy had expired or where there are no specific terms of lease which are brought about by contract of parties. It could only subsist as long as the landlord is willing to receive the rent and allow for continuance of possession by the tenant. It is in that context that the order of the Collector must be understood that he allowed for continuance of possession till the completion of one year and directed that the rent should be paid and that after the harvest, the petitioner should hand over the property to any successful bidder at the auction for lease form the Municipal Committee. 6. A tenant could either be statutorily protected or tenancy created by express terms of a contract. If no specific contractual terms allow for the petitioner's continuance and if there is no statutory protection available to treat himself as a statutory tenant, at the conclusion of the period of lease and as directed that after completion of the harvest, the petitioner should hand over possession. No exception could be found against such a direction in the order. The petitioner's contention that the authorities had not found the petitioner to be in unlawful occupation has only to be rejected for the order that the petitioner shall hand over possession follows from an admitted position that there was no contractual term to allow for extension of the lease period beyond the time of harvest. The petitioner's contention that the authorities had not found the petitioner to be in unlawful occupation has only to be rejected for the order that the petitioner shall hand over possession follows from an admitted position that there was no contractual term to allow for extension of the lease period beyond the time of harvest. The petition for eviction itself had been filed only on the premise that the landlord was not willing to allow for the continuance of lease with the petitioner. This was precisely the petitioner's grievance also that the landlord was not willing to receive the rent from him. There is no way that a tenant can force a tenancy on a landlord if it was not agreed to by a landlord or when there is no statutory protection for a creation of a lease. The direction for handing over of the possession of the property was, therefore, in accordance with law and there is no scope for interference in the writ petition. 7. The respondents would even deny the petitioner's continuance of possession and would state that the property had passed on to the hands of the subsequent bidder, who had also paid the money. This statement is merely recorded in this order but the petitioner's alleged entitlement to continue in possession is found against the petitioner even without reference to the subsequent event. 8. The impugned orders are confirmed and the writ petition is dismissed. The interim order granted for protection of possession shall stand vacated.