( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed being aggrieved by judgment and order of the director of Civil Supplies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad dated 8-2-1996 passed on its file No. DCS. Ref. No. E2/1015/95, confirming the order of the Joint collector, Nizamabad in reference Memo. No. S/3/299/93, dated 31-8-1995. By both the orders the request of the petitioner for renewal of licence bearing no. 83/3909/90 is refused. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri e. Manohar strenuously contended that the impugned order is illegal and without jurisdiction. He further submitted that the Court below is in error in observing that for renewal of licence the possession should be lawful and in fact the provisions of A. P. Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as Petroleum Products Order) do not insist any lawfulness of the possession of the person who has applied for a license. Therefore, the entire approach of both the authorities below is illegal and consequently the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that as per the said Petroleum Products Order a license is granted with reference to a place of business and such a place of business, the licensee shall be in lawful possession. He further submitted that the authorities below were right in insisting upon the lawful possession of the petitioner for renewing the licence. He submitted that in view of the findings of this court in W. P. No. 15110/92, dated 28-12-1992 that the possession of the licensor of the appellant w. e. f. 18-12-1992 was unlawful, consequently even the possession of the petitioner would be that of a trespasser; and the authorities below rightly refused the renewal of the licence of the petitioner. There is neither illegality nor any irregularity in the impugned order so as to call for interference in the writ jurisdiction of this court and accordingly submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

( 2 ) NOW, the short point that arises for my consideration is whether for renewal of licence the possession of such licensee shall be necessarily lawful or not.

( 3 ) IT is an admitted fact that the respondent No. 2 in the writ petition is the original land-holder, and the premises in question was leased to m/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Chandralok Complex, secunderabad upto 18-12-1992, either by agreement or by statutory renewal under Section 5 of ESSO (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1974. It appears that on 20-5-1992 M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited which is the successor-in-interest of the ESSO Petrol Company gave a notice to the land-holder requesting him to renew the lease for a further period of 10 years from 18-12-1992. Such a request was rejected by the land-holder. On a lawyer s notice got issued on 26-6-1992 requesting the land-holder to renew the lease, the land-holder preferred a writ petition to this court in W. P. No. 15110/92. The learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the said writ petition vide judgment and order dated 28-12-1992. The judgment reads as under:"no doubt, under Section 5 of Act 4 of 1974 the tenant by right, gets the renewal of the existing lease for a period of ten years. This benefit having been availed of by the 2nd respondent already in 1982, question of getting further extension from 18-12-1992, does not arise. Petitioner has no such right for the extension of the lease for 10 more years from 18-12-1992. In view of what is stated above, I hold that the respondents are not entitled for renewal of lease from 18-12-1992 at all. Therefore, the possession of the 2nd respondent, subsequent to 18-12-1992, is that of a trespasser and not as a lessee. As per sub-section (1) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act - "on the determination of the lease, the lessee is bound to