S.C. Agrawal, J.
1. In this petition under Article 226 of the constitution the petitioner seeks a thin the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from recovering dead not from the petitioner in respect of the land which had been leased out to the petitioner under the leases deed dated October 4, 1954 a lease was granted to the petitioner from November 1, 1954, in respect of an area measuring 15 Sq miles near village Golan in District mineral under the Rajasthan Minor Excavating of lime stone which is a minor Mineral Concession Rule 1959 the lease was granted for the period of 5 your and a sum of Rs. 96000/- was payable as annual dead rent under it the lease was renewed for a period of 5 yours from November 1, 1959 October 31, 1964. But before the expiry of the renewed term the petitioner on April 25, 1964 Applied for second renewal of lease under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Minor mineral concession Rule 1959 Before any action was taken on the said application for the renewal the petitioner on September, 9 1964 addressed a communication to the state Government where in he requested the renewal of the lease may be Granted for the period of 10 your instead of 5 years. In the said Communication the petitioner had also submitted that the amount of the dead rent should not be fixed higher then Rs. 96000/- per annum and that in case the dead rent was increased, the petitioner would relinquish 5 sq miles out of the area leased out to the petitioner as per terms and conditions of the original government sanction of 1953 No decision was taken on the application of the petitioner for renewal of the lease till October 12, 1964 the date of the expiry of the lease but ,by its order dated November 12, 1964, the state Government directed that pending finalization of the application of the petitioner for gaunt of second renewal of the mining lease the petitioner should not be dispossessed from the area status quo should be maintained subsequently by order dated December 24 1965 passed by the director of mines and geology respondent No. 2 the second renewal of the lease of the petitioner was sanctioned in the payment of annual dead rent of Rs. 144000/- in the place of Rs. 96000/- per annum prcised in the original lease the petitioner raised objection with regard to the petitioner of 5 sq miles of the are mikes of the area and the consequent reduction in the quantum of the dead rent should be accepted with effect from the November 1, 1964, but no agreement could be arrived between the petitioner and the respondents and the resole was that no lese deed was executed in respect of the period subsequent to October 31, 1964 The case of the petitioner is that even though he was not liable to pay any dead rent whatsoever after October 31, 1964 it had paid dead rent at the rate of Rs. 96,000/-per annum from November, 1964 but three respondents wanted to receiver dead rent from the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,44,000/- per annum from that date The Assistant Miming Engineer forwarded a requisition certificate dated February 26, 1966 under Sections 256/257 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, for the recovery of Rs. 96,000/- on account of arrears of dead rent in respect of the period from November 1, 1964 to April 30, 1966. Subsequently a notice dated February 1, 1967 was served by the Addl. Tehsildar Jodhpur, whereby the petitioner was required to deposit Rs. 1, 56,C00/ on account of dues of dead rent for 'he period from November 1, 1964 is January 31, 1967 The petitioner went in revision against the said order of the Addl. Tehsildar, Jodhpur and the Board of Revenue by its order dated 1st May, 1969, accepted the revision petition of the petitioner and cancelled the writ of demand and remanded the case to the Add). Tehsildar, Mines. The Addl. Tehsildar, Mines, Bikaner after fully considering the matter, passed an Order dated December 8, 1969 wherein he held that no Proceedings for recovery of d ad rent could be taken against the petitioner in as much as there was no properly executed contract of lease covering the period subsequent to October 31, 1964. In view of the findings aforesaid, the Addl. Tehsildar dropped the recovery proceedings pending against the petitioner. Inspire of the aforesaid order passed by Addl. Tehsildar, Mines, the Assistant Mining Engineer (Recovery) Bikaner, issued afresh demand on December 15, 1970 for the recovery of Rs. 72,000/-on account of arrears of dead rent in respect of period from November 1, 1964 to June 21, 1966 Aggrieved by the said demand, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the relief mentioned above.
2. In support of the writ petition, Shri H.M. Parekh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that, in law, liability to pay deed rent can arise only in a case where there is a validity executed lease dead and that in the present case, no lease dead has been executed in respect of the period subsequent to October 31, 1964, and there fore, no demand for recovery t f dead rent could be raised against the petitioner In support of the afore said submission, the counsel has placed reliance on an earlier decision of this Court in Firm Ramlal and Sons v. State of Rajasthan S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 318 of 1966 decided on April 7, 1969. The counsel has also submitted in the present case, the matter was concluded by the order of the Addl. Tehsildar dated December 8, 1969, wherein it has been held that the petitioner was not liable to pay dead rent in respect of the period subsequent October 31, 1974 and that in the face of the said order, which had be come final and was binding inter-parties, it was not open to the respondents to recover any dead rent from the petitioner in respect of the period subsequent to October 31, 1964.
3. In Firm Ramlal & Sons v State of Rajasthan (supra) this Court had to deal with a case which was very similar to the present case in as much as in that case also a dispute had arisen between the lessee and the Government with regard to the quantum of the dead rent at the stage of renewal of the mining lease and in view of the said dispute, the mining lease had not been renewed and there after the question had arisen as to whether dead rent was recoverable from the lessee in respect of the period subsequent to the expiry of the lease, Tyagi, J., (as he then was) held that under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Commission Rules, 1959, the relationship of lesions and lessee could be created only after the execution of the lease deed under rule 18 of the said Rules and such a relationship of lease and lessee could not be brought into existence by an implied contract. The learned Judge has in the said case, further held that in the absence of a valid lease having been created in accordance with the provisions of Rule 18 of the Rules, the Government was not entitled to demand dead rent for the period for which no valid lease exists.
4. In my view, the aforesaid decision fully governs present case in as much as here also no lease dead was executed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral and Concessions Rules, 1959, covering the paned subsequent to October 31, 1964 and in absence of such lease deed having been executed, the relationship of lessor and lessee ceased to exist between the parties after October 31, 1961- and the respondents are not competent to demand dead rent from the petitioner in respect of period subsequent to October 31, 1964.
5. In view of my finding accessed on the first contention urged by Shri Parekh, I do not think it necessary to deal with second contention urged by Shri Parekh that the order of Adll. Tehsildar, dated December 8, 1969 bars the recovery of dead rent in aspects of the period subsequent to October 31, 1964.
6. The writ petition is allowed and the respondents are restrained from recovering from the petitioner the dead rent in respect of the period subsequent to October 31, 1964. In the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.