Judgment

DUA, J.-In this appeal by special leave the appellant who has appeared in person challenges the order of a learned single Judge of the Gujarat High Court (Shelat, J.), dismissing in limine criminal revision against the order of the Sessions Judge, dated October 4, 1969, dismissing the appellant s revision from the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Kalol, dated August 30, 1969, granting the application of the railway administration under Section 138 of the Indian Railways Act and directing the P. S. I. Railways at Sabarmati who is also the P. S. I. Railways at Kalol to secure possession of the stalls in question from the appellant to the railway administration or to the person appointed by the administration in that behalf.

2. The appellant had, on February 9, 1964, entered into an agreement with the railway administration by means of which he was allotted a Tea Table (hereafter described as Tea Stall) at Kalol railway station. This agreement came into force from May 18, 1964, and subject to the provisions for earlier termination was to remain in force for three years. By a similar agreement, dated February 20, 1955, the appellant was allotted a Refreshment Stall at the same railway station for a period of three years subject to the provision for earlier termination similar to the first agreement. In both the agreements the appellant was described as the licensee. Under these agreements the terms of which are identical the appellant was to run the two stalls in accordance with the directions of the railway administration. In addition to other terms for earlier termination, the agreements were also terminable under Clause 52 by one month s notice on either side without assigning any reason. On July 11, 1965, the two Stalls were inspected by the Commercial Inspector and the Station Master and it was found that the appellant had committed irregularities and was not running them in accordance with the directions of the railway administration. A fine of Rs. 100 was imposed on him in terms of the agreement, the fine being payable within one week under Clause 33(a). The amount of fine having not been paid within the stipulated period a notice was given to the appellant on September 16, 1965, for vacating the railway premises by October 30, 1965. The appellant having failed to vacate the premises, the agreements were terminated with effect from November, 1965.

3. As the possession of the Tea and Refreshment Stalls was not delivered by the appellant to the railway administration, the latter applied to the Judicial Magistrate, Kalol under Section 138 of the Indian Railways Act for securing possession of the aforesaid premises. Before the Magistrate it was not disputed that since the appellant had to work under the supervision and according to the directions of the railway administration he was a railway servant. This, according to the learned Magistrate, was not denied by the appellant even in his written statement ; on the other hand it was claimed that the position of the appellant was at par with that of the railway servants. The appellant contested the application principally on the ground that the contracts of the Tea and Refreshment Stalls had been entered into with the appellant with the object of rehabilitating him as a displaced person from Pakistan and that, therefore, those contracts could not be terminated. After a lengthy discussion on the points raised the learned Magistrate expressed his final conclusion in these words :

"The opponent is proved to be railway servant. Also it is proved that his service has been lawfully discharged. Mr. Thakursingh, the learned advocate for the opponent has contended that the applicant has terminated the agreement without any justification and without assigning any reason. But that is not required to be done by either party to the agreement. It is argued by Mr. Thakursingh that the opponent is prepared to pay arrears of licence fees to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- or so and he is prepared to