applicant who was running petrol pump under the agreement executed by the Corporation. Under the agreement, the Corporation reserved its right to terminate the agreement and take possession of the subject plot. Admittedly subject plot was leased by CIDCO in favour of Corporation. Prima-facie considering the evidence we are of the view that applicant had entered upon the premises as a dealer/licence holder of the Corporation to sell petrol through the petrol pump. As his dealership was cancelled, the Corporation had every right and authority to restrict entry of the applicant in the subject premises since last more than 13 years, the applicant is in possession of the subject plot without any express or implied authority of the Corporation. The submission advanced on behalf of the applicant by referring to provisions of Eviction Act cannot be a substantive ground for allowing the applicant to remain in possession. The subject plot which is a leased one in favour of the Corporation has not been put to its proper use by the Corporation. The people at large are deprived of services of Corporation due to the same. We find that the reasoning adopted by the trial Court is sound and we do not find any perversity in the same. Prima-facie we do not find any case to grant interim-relief in favour of the applicant. Civil Application is rejected.
