THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4113 of 2010 ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 18.08.2010 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.15 of 2010 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, whereunder and whereby the order dated 02.06.2010 in I.A. No.618 of 2009 in O.S. No.142 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar was confirmed. 2. The petitioner herein filed Original Suit No.142 of 2009 against the respondents herein for grant of perpetual injunction to restrain them from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property without due process of law, and filed I.A. No.618 of 2009 therein for temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit stating that, petitioner is the licensee and possessor of Sweet Stall at Karimnagar Bus stand ever since 1.7.2003 and has been regularly paying the licence fee and electricity charges. The licence of the petitioner expired on 30.06.2009. The petitioner is entitled to continue in possession of petition schedule property even thereafter up to finalization of tender procedure and fresh allotment, but the respondents are making efforts to evict the petitioner from the schedule property after expiry of licence. 3. The respondents filed counter stating that the petitioner is bound to vacate the schedule property after expiration of licence and the respondents are entitled to take possession thereof in terms of the licence, and that only in exceptional cases, extension can be granted, that tender procedure is finalized. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the petition. 4. The trial Court, vide order dated 02.06.2010, dismissed the I.A. On appeal, the appellate court dismissed the appeal by the impugned order. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even after termination of licence period, the petitioner is entitled to continue in the premises; that the respondents are receiving the rents and therefore, till the petitioner is evicted in accordance with law, injunction may be granted. 6. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory viz. to see whether the courts below have acted within their bounds or not. The case of the petitioner is that even after expiration of licence period, he is continuing in the premises and paying the rents and the same are being accepted by the respondents. There cannot be any dispute that after expiration of licence period, the petitioner cannot have any right whatsoever to continue in the premises. Simply because the respondents are accepting rents after expiration of licence period, that does not mean that the licence has been impliedly extended. Both the courts below gave concurrent findings holding that licensee is not entitled to ask for injunction in view of the fact that the period of licence has expired. None of the findings is shown to be perverse or contrary to law. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 7. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible subject to other old and part-heard cases. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 08.09.2010 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4113 of 2010 08.09.2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4113 of 2010 08.09.2010 Between: Chaganti Rama Rao …Petitioner And APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director, Hyderabad & others …Respondents