JUDGMENT :

R.D. Kothari, J.

Facts are somewhat interesting. The question raised herein is; roughly stated, what is the nature of occupation of the petitioner qua the respondents and also its nature of occupation qua the property in question. To appreciate the controversy raised herein, facts may be referred to.

2. Relevant facts leading to the filing of these two petitions briefly are, thus;

2.1. At Jashonath Chowk, Bhavnagar, there is one petrol pump. The dispute between the parties centers around the said petrol pump. Story of petrol pump, in short, is, thus; In 1952, about 6113 sq. yards land was given on lease by former ruler of the Bhavnagar State to one Company then known as 'Burma Shell Co.' Lease was for the 10 years. It is said that retail outlet to sell petrol products started in 1952. Then, on 26.2.1964, a registered lease deed was executed for another period of 10 years by Maharaja in favour of Burma Shell Co. The respondent had acquired the dealership in 1970. The respondent acquired licence/dealership in the name of Bhavnagar Auto Resort. In 1976, Burma Shell Co. was taken over by the Government and the company now known as "Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) had replaced the former Burma Shell Co. Meanwhile, by executing a registered sale deed one D & V Enterprise has purchased the property from the former Maharaja. It was by registered sale deed dated 20.7.1972. The Bhavnagar Auto Resort then belonged to firm, viz., M/s. Dhirajlal N. Shah Firm. Partner Dhirajlal had died on 9.5.1976. Present respondent Nos.2 and 3 became partner of the said Dhirajlal N. Shah Firm. Licence was renewed in their favour in 1976. In 1992, by exchange deed dated 11.5.1992, D & V Enterprise transferred the property in question to the respondent i.e. Dhirajlal N. Shah Firm. It is the say of the respondents that they had closed the business of Bhavnagar Auto Resort in December,2004. It is further say of the respondents that over Rs. 19 lacs were due from the petitioner on account of excess collection of amount by it. It is also say of the respondents that meeting and negotiation take place between the parties and petitioner had agreed to pay Rs. 18.25 lacs. Presumably, the said dispute is resolved or if not resolved, it is not of much consequence in the present case as it was not at all put in issue at the time of hearing. While so, petitioner had filed Regular Civil Suit No.27 of 2006 before the learned Civil Judge (SD), Bhavnagar. Therein, the plaintiff has also prayed for interim relief (Exh.5). The trial court, after hearing the learned advocates for the parties, had granted interim relief by order dated 31.8.2006. The defendant therein-either by themselves or through agents and servants-were restrained from causing interference in plaintiff's possession of suit property. The said order of the trial court was carried in appeal by the respondents. Pending the appeal before the District Court, important development take place. It is the say of the respondents that on 1.6.2007, petitioner sought to take possession forcibly. The respondents had approached the District Court and at the intervention of the court, possession was restored to the respondents. It further appears that in June,2007, respondent firm instituted a suit against the present petitioner i.e. Regular Civil Suit No.403 of 2007 claiming that part of the suit property i.e. 550.59 sq.mtr. is in possession of the respondents/plaintiffs and petitioner be restrained from causing any interference in the possession of the plaintiffs/respondents. In the said suit, plaintiffs claimed that they are owners of the suit property. It appears that in the said suit, trial court had not granted any interim relief to the plaintiffs.

2.2. The petitioner by letter dated 28.5.2007/1.6.2007 terminated the dealership agreement and licence of the respondents. The said termination was with immediate effect. Then, it is said that on 5.6.2007, petitioner took forcible possession of the suit prope