Lease renewal on public land is not a matter of right where statutory permission was limited and the original purpose had changed.

A lessee of public land could not claim renewal of the lease as a matter of right where the statutory scheme required prior State Government permission for leases beyond the prescribed limit and the existing permission covered the lease only up to 31.03.2012. The land had been leased at a nominal rent for an oil mill, but the construction on it had no connection with that original business purpose. In these circumstances, no inherent or enforceable right to insist on further renewal arose, and a municipality could not be compelled to grant another lease of the public property.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to renewal of the lease as a matter of right and whether the Municipality could be compelled to grant a further lease of the public land.

Analysis: The lease was originally granted for an oil mill and the statutory scheme required prior State Government permission for leases beyond the prescribed limit. The existing permission covered the lease only up to 31.03.2012. The land was public property leased at a nominal rent, and the construction raised on it had no connection with the original business purpose. In these circumstances, the appellant could not assert an inherent or enforceable right to insist on renewal of the lease.

Conclusion: The claim to renewal of the lease as a matter of right was rejected and the finding that no further lease could be compelled was upheld.

---