JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Both these writ petitions relates to same parties and properties and are connected, therefore, have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Petitioner-Brij Bihari Lal Tandon claims himself to be a lease holder of Nazul Plots No. 148/14 area 1.366 karis and 167/4 area 2.200 karis, total 1.566 karis, within Manunath Bhanjan Municipality, pursuant to a registered lease deed dated 10.10.1953. Lease deed was executed by Governor of United Provinces on one part and petitioner-Brij Bihari Lal Tandon on second part. On behalf of Governor lease deed was executed by Municipal Board, Mau and Collector of District Azamgarh as ‘Lessor’. The term of lease was 30 years w.e.f. 1.10.1953. 3. Petitioner constructed two godowns on leased land which were sub-let to Regional Food Controller as directed by Collector, Azamgarh. Subsequently a Bungalow was also constructed over a portion of land and same was let out to Life Insurance Corporation under the directions of Collector. Term of lease was to expire in 1983 and in anticipation thereof petitioner applied for renewal of lease in 1979. Lease was not renewed till the term expired, though subsequently Collector recommended renewal of lease vide letter dated 16.7.1984. State Government accepted recommendation, required petitioner to pay premium of Rs. 1,97,200/- and annual rent of Rs. 295/-. Letter to this effect was issued to petitioner on 31 May/10 June, 1985 by Nazul Officer. Petitioner agreed to pay annual rent but objecting demand of premium of Rs. 1,97,200/-, submitted an application dated 5.8.1985 requesting for its waiver, in view of Rule 17(3) of Nazul Manual. Collector, Azamgarh, vide letter dated February, 1986 made recommendation in favour of petitioner for waiver of premium but same was not accepted and instead impugned order dated 8.7.1988 has been passed by Collector, Azamgarh, directing petitioner to remove his Malba from disputed land and handover vacant possession to Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Maunath Bhanjan. It is this order dated 8.7.1988 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) which has been challenged in Writ Petition No. 13846 of 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “first petition”) seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the same. Petitioner has also sought a mandamus commanding respondents to renew lease in his favour for another term of 30 years in accordance with Rules 17(3), 22, 55 and 56 of Nazul Manual, without insisting for payment of any premium. 4. Petitioner has also sought a mandamus commanding respondents to renew lease in his favour for another term of 30 years in accordance with Rules 17(3), 22, 55 and 56 of Nazul Manual, without insisting for payment of any premium. 4. Original copy of lease deed has also been placed on record, alongwith a supplementary-affidavit sworn on 18.3.1998 by Vishnu Kumar Tandon son of petitioner. 5. The first petition has been contested by Respondent-3 by filing a counter-affidavit sworn by Faizur Rahman, Head Clerk, Municipal Board, Maunath Bhanjan. It is stated therein that petitioner has played fraud inasmuch as he was President of Municipal Board in 1950. He moved an application to District Magistrate, Azamgarh who was also occupying the office of Administrator, Municipal Board in 1953, requesting that disputed plots be given to him on lease. Collector/Administrator sought report from Secretary, Municipal Board. Land belong to Municipal Board and was governed by rules applicable to Municipal Board. Pursuant thereto Executive Officer submitted report dated 21.4.1951 recommending to execute lease deed for a period of 30 years. 6. Nazul Clerk also examined matter and submitted report that land in question is property of Municipal Board, Mau and not Nazul land, hence would be governed by Municipal Board and not rules applicable to Nazul land. 7. Petitioner when applied for renewal concealed this fact that land in dispute is not Nazul but belong to Municipal Board and sought renewal in terms of Nazul Manual, whereupon District Magistrate forwarded his request under the impression that disputed property is Nazul land, without examining old record. 8. The State Government, however, vide order dated 20.3.1985 observed that petitioner has committed breach of terms of lease. However, if he agrees to pay premium of Rs. 1,97,200/- and annual rent of Rs. 295/-, matter of renewal may be examined. Municipal Board wrote a letter dated 9.7.1987 to District Magistrate stating that disputed land is needed for Industrial Development by Respondent-3. Collector then communicated petitioner the said need of Municipal Board and directed him to vacate premises vide letter dated 8.7.1986. The lease having already expired, petitioner has no right of any kind to occupy disputed land and, therefore, has to vacate the same. 9. Collector then communicated petitioner the said need of Municipal Board and directed him to vacate premises vide letter dated 8.7.1986. The lease having already expired, petitioner has no right of any kind to occupy disputed land and, therefore, has to vacate the same. 9. A counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of Respondents-1 and 2 sworn by Raj Bahadur, Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Mau stating that mere recommendation for renewal does not confer any right upon petitioner for renewal in the manner he likes. It is also said that it is not a case where Government gave an option to petitioner for renewal but an option was given for fresh lease subject to payment of premium. Further, in the meantime, since Municipal Board required land for its own purpose, therefore, petitioner has been directed to vacated disputed land. 10. Another counter-affidavit has been filed by Respondent-4 stating that disputed land belong to Respondent-3 and in support thereof he has referred to Khatauni of 1391 Fasli. We find that in the said Khatauni disputed land is shown as ‘Abadi’ and recorded as “Government land” under the management of Municipal Board. 11. In reply to counter-affidavit filed by Respondent-3 petitioner has also filed a rejoinder-affidavit. In respect of averments contained in para 4 of the counter-affidavit that petitioner has deliberately suppressed material facts and disputed land is not a “Nazul” but belong to Municipal Board, nothing has been said in para 4 of rejoinder-affidavit except of referring to lease deed, provisions of Nazul Manual and subsequent recommendations made by Collector. It would be appropriate to reproduce para 4 of counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 4 and petitioner’s reply contained in para 4 of rejoinder-affidavit: “4. That plot No. 148/14 and 167/4 situated within the Municipal Limit of Maunath Bhanjan has all along vested in the Municipal Board and is not a Nazul land. The petitioner has made deliberate suppression of material facts especially when he had been the President of Municipal Board. On 3.10.1950 the petitioner moved application to the District Magistrate, Azamgarh who was the Administrator of Municipal Board in 1950 praying that the aforesaid plots of land may be given to him on lease. A copy of the same is filed herewith as Annexure (1) to this counter-affidavit. The Administrator directed the Secretary of Municipal Board to report in the matter. A copy of the same is filed herewith as Annexure (1) to this counter-affidavit. The Administrator directed the Secretary of Municipal Board to report in the matter. At the particular time the transfer of property vested in Municipal Board were govern by the rules. A copy of the same is filed herewith as Annexure (2) to this counter-affidavit. The Executive Officer of the Board submitted report on 17.10.1950. On 21.4.1951 the Executive Officer submitted report. A copy of the report is filed herewith and is marked as Annexure (3) to this counter-affidavit.” “4. The contents of para 4 of the counter-affidavit are misconceived and denied. The lease deed was executed on 10.10.1953 and petitioner applied lease for 90 years. But the lease was granted for 30 years only inspite of clear provision under Rule 22 Rule 56 of Nazul Manual. Moreover the petitioner also applied for renewal of lease in the year of 1979, enquiry and opinion of D.G.C. was also obtained and thereafter the District Magistrate recommended the renewal lease on 16.7.84 vide Annexure 4 to the petition. However the application of petitioner for renewal of lease is still pending.” 12. However, in respect of averments contained in para 5 and 6 of counter-affidavit filed by Respondent-3 that Nazul Clerk submitted report that property belongs to Municipal Board, petitioner in para 5 of rejoinder-affidavit has said that disputed land originally owned by Rani Dhandei Kuwar, Zamindar and acquired by Secretary of State for India under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1894”) vide award dated 9.9.1909 and Government of India became owner thereof. Subsequently these plots were given under management of Town Area and never vested in it. Town Area with passage of time became Municipal Board. Transfer of management does not create proprietory rights and control of Nazul land remain with Collector on behalf of State, hence Nazul Manual continue to apply. 13. The first petition came up for admission before this Court on 26.7.1988 when this Court passed following interim order: “Till further orders of the Court the direction of the Government to the petitioner to renew the lease on condition of payment of premium of Rs. 1,97,200/- shall remain stayed. 13. The first petition came up for admission before this Court on 26.7.1988 when this Court passed following interim order: “Till further orders of the Court the direction of the Government to the petitioner to renew the lease on condition of payment of premium of Rs. 1,97,200/- shall remain stayed. The petitioner shall be liable to pay only the annual rent as has been determined in the order dated 31.3.85, copy of which has been filed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. The arrears shall be paid within six weeks from the date a copy of this order is filed before the District Magistrate/Collector, Azamgarh.” 14. During pendency of above writ petition, petitioner applied for conversion of free hold rights in respect of disputed property by submitting application dated 4.1.1999 and depositing Rs. 2,40,000/- (1/4 of total value). It appears that Collector issued a demand notice dated 31.8.1999 requiring petitioner to deposit total balance amount of Rs. 11,19,046.80. Petitioner deposited same on 4.9.1999. Thereafter District Magistrate sought direction from Government vide letter dated 6.9.1999 and State Government vide letter dated 22.9.1999 required Collector to proceed for execution of sale-deed. When no action was taken, petitioner moved representation dated 28.9.1999 to Chief Secretary, U.P. whereupon a direction was issued on 4.10.1999 to comply with earlier direction of State Government contained in letter dated 22.9.1999 and Commissioner was also directed to ensure compliance. Thereupon Commissioner issued letter on 7.10.1999 to Collector requesting him to execute sale-deed. However, Collector again sought direction from State Government, vide letter dated 25.10.1999, whereupon Government vide order dated 5.12.1999 directed Collector to execute sale-deed. Since matter remained pending, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 8776 of 2000, which was disposed of on 22.2.2000 directing Collector to decide petitioner’s claim. In the meantime, one Jagannath Singh moved objection dated 7.3.2000 stating that land belong to Nagar Palika and persons occupying same should not be evicted. Another objection dated 8.3.2000 was filed by Nagar Palika stating that civil suit is pending in respect of disputed land. District Magistrate rejected objection of Nagar Palika for deferring free hold proceedings vide order dated 23.8.1999 but thereafter passed order dated 20.4.2000 directing that matter should be kept in abeyance till civil suits are decided. It is this order dated 20.4.2000, which has been challenged by petitioner by means of Writ Petition No. 20134 of 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the “second petition”). It is this order dated 20.4.2000, which has been challenged by petitioner by means of Writ Petition No. 20134 of 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the “second petition”). 15. It is not in disputed that two suits were pending in respect of disputed land being Original Suits No. 79 of 2000 and 164 of 1999. 16. Both the writ petitions were disposed of on 8.5.2009 by a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble P.C. Verma and Hon’ble Rajesh Chandra, J.J. with following order: “Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned standing counsel. Collector Mau is directed to take decision in compliance with the Government Order dated 17.1.2000 contained in (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) within a period of two months as the petitioner has already deposited the whole amount as mentioned in the Government Order for getting the land free hold. Petitioner is disposed of with the aforesaid observation/direction.” 17. Felt aggrieved by aforesaid order, Respondent-3 filed appeal in Supreme Court being Civil Appeals No. 5684 and 5685 of 2012. The appeals have been decided vide judgment dated 27.7.2012 and setting aside order dated 8.5.2009, matter has been remanded to decide both these writ petitions on merits. The order passed by Apex Court on 27.7.2012, reads as under: “Leave granted. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the order passed by the High Court clearly shows that no reasons have been assigned by the High Court in support of its conclusion. The matter pertains to grant of freehold rights to the respondents which had to be considered on the basis of material produced before the Court. In view of above, the impugned orders passed by the High Court are set aside and the matters are remitted back to the High Court for deciding the writ petitions on merit. Since the parties have been litigating for a very long time, the High Court is requested to dispose of the writ petitions as early as possible, in any event, within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.” 18. It is in these circumstances, both these matters have come up before this Court for hearing and disposal. 19. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.” 18. It is in these circumstances, both these matters have come up before this Court for hearing and disposal. 19. We are also informed that Original Suit No. 164 of 1999 filed by Respondent-3 has been dismissed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mau vide judgment and decree dated 14.3.2016. 20. Copy of original agreement (deed of lease) executed on 10.10.1953 is on record and on the top it is mentioned as “Lease Of The Municipal Board Land For The Purpose Of Building Residential Quarter And Godowns For The Government Department”. It further says that deed is being executed between Governer of Uttar Pradesh called as “Lessor” and Brij Behari Lal Tandon called as “Lessee”. It further says that Municipal Board, Mau of District Azamgarh has agreed on behalf of Lessor to demise plot of land described in deed subject to rights and restrictions and several covenants stated thereafter in agreement. The right to hold premises by lessee is clearly mentioned for a tenure of 30 years from 1.10.1953. Thereafter it contains about 13 stipulations dealing with terms and conditions. Right to cancel lease, reentry etc. are contained in following clause: “Provided always and these presents are executed on this express condition that if and whenever the rent hereby reserved as payable by the lessee or any part thereof shall be in arrear and unpaid for the spare of three months, whether the same shall have been lawfully demanded or not, or if there shall be a breach of non-observance of any of the covenants by the Lessee hereinbefore contained then and in any such case the lessor notwithstanding the Waiver of any cause or right of re-entry may re-enter upon the said premises and expel the lessee and forfeit all rights to remove and recover any compensation for any building rented by him on the said premises. And the Lessor hereby covenants with the Lessee, (Firstly) that he will during the period of his sub-tenancy pay and discharge all rates, taxes, charges and assessments of every description which may then or which may at any time thereafter be assessed, charged or imposed upon the said premises or the buildings to be erected thereon or the landlord or tenant in respect thereof. Provided also that the expressions ‘the lessor’ and ‘the Lessee’ hereinbefore used shall unless such an interpretation be inconsistent with the context include in the case of the former his successor and assigns and in the case of the latter his heirs, executors, administrators, representatives and assigns.” 21. The document makes it very clear that though agreement was executed by Municipal Board, Mau and Collector both and it was on behalf of Governor of Uttar Pradesh, and petitioner, Brij Behari Lal Tandon but description of land was clearly mentioned as Municipal Board’s land. 22. Besides above, copy of petitioner’s own letter dated 3.10.1950 has also been placed on record as Annexure-1 to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent-3 sworn on 30.8.1988 by Faizur Rahman, Head Clerk, Municipal Board, Mau and petitioner himself has admitted therein that disputed land is owned by Mau Municipal Board. The letter reads as under: “To, The District Magistrate, Azamgarh. Sir, Most respectfully I bet to submit that I need a suitable plot of land for cottage industries at the outskirts of the Town. The Mau Municipal Board owns two plots of lands in Village Nizamuddinpur. The number of the plots of land 148/11/2 and 167/1/1 and their area is 2 acres 888 kari and 207 kari respectfully. That land is lying useless and is quite suitable for our purposes. The Municipal Board Mau used to give this land on yearly contract every year, but it is lying vacant now. I request you most earnestly, every kindly to give these two plots of lands to me on suitable compensation in the interest of development of the Cottage Industries. Thanking you. Yours faithfully, Ocrober, 3, 1950 Brij Behari Lal Tandon” 23. Report submitted by Nazul Clerk on 27.9.1951 on application of petitioner also refers to old acquisition files and says that land was acquired for Town Area, Mau, in 1909 for “Night Soil” and it was transferred to it by State hence it was property of Municipal Board and not a Nazul land. Subsequent case pleaded by petitioner is also that land initially belong to Smt. Rani Dhandei Kuwar, the then Zamindar, wherefrom it was acquired by State for being used as “Night Soil” by the then local body Town Area, Mau, which subsequently has been upgrated to the status of Municipal Board, Mau. Subsequent case pleaded by petitioner is also that land initially belong to Smt. Rani Dhandei Kuwar, the then Zamindar, wherefrom it was acquired by State for being used as “Night Soil” by the then local body Town Area, Mau, which subsequently has been upgrated to the status of Municipal Board, Mau. All these facts make it clear that the factum that land in dispute belong to Municipal Board Mau since its very inception when lease agreement was executed was never disputed by petitioner. That being so, petitioner is estopped from taking a different stand in order to claim a right of renewal under Nazul Manual or otherwise or right of conversion of freehold by stating that land is not owned by Municipal Board but is vested in State Government and is a Nazul land, governed by provisions of Nazul Manual and not the rules and regulations applicable to land owned and maintained by Municipal Board. 24. Then the question comes, whether there is any breach of the covenants of lease deed or not. 25. Stipulation No. 8 of agreement reads as under: “And (Eighthly) that he will not at any time carry on or permit to be carried on upon the said premises and trade or business whatsoever or use the same for any other purpose then as godowns, residential quarter and outbuildings or the Government Departments without the consent in writing of the Collector first had and obtained.” 26. Petitioner let out two godowns without the consent of Collector to U.P. Small Scale Industries, Lucknow. Similarly in violation of Clause 12 of agreement he let out residential building to a Sale Tax Officer though it was not directed or nominated by Collector. Both these facts were admitted by petitioner in his letter dated 5.8.1985 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition). He, therefore, committed breach of covenants and lost any right to continue. Even otherwise, petitioner’s lease expired on expiry of 30 years from 1.10.1953. 27. Rule 17 and 55 of Nazul Manual, as referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner, have no application whatsoever as is evident from bare reading thereof. On the contrary, land in dispute is clearly a “Public Premises” owned and managed by Municipal Board, Mau. It was entitled to determine lease deed and request Collector for petitioner’s eviction from disputed property. It is pursuant thereto Collector has passed impugned order. 28. On the contrary, land in dispute is clearly a “Public Premises” owned and managed by Municipal Board, Mau. It was entitled to determine lease deed and request Collector for petitioner’s eviction from disputed property. It is pursuant thereto Collector has passed impugned order. 28. In Delhi Development Authority v. Anant Raj Agencies Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2016 SC 1806 , Court has observed, where there is a breach of the covenants of lease deed, in law, there was no need to even formal determination of tenancy as after expiry of original period of lease it stands terminated by efflux of time. There is no automatic or deemed acceptance of renewal of tenancy and even principle of “Holding Over” under Section 116 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 would have no application. The status of petitioner, the original lessee, after expiry of period of lease thus became that of an “unauthorized occupant”. Therefore, petitioner has no legal or otherwise right to seek a mandamus either to command respondents to renew lease of land in question in his favour or to convert his lease rights into freehold rights. 29. We, therefore, find no merit in both these writ petitions. 30. Dismissed. 31. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 32. No costs. ——————