MISHRA, J.

1. We are satisfied that these appeals do not merit any detailed hearing and are fit to be dismissed in limine . Still we do not propose to dismiss the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant seeking admission of the appeals dismissively and accordingly propose to deal with the arguments by him.

2. It is not in dispute that the appellant and the respondent entered into an agreement pursuant to which he was, according to the appellant, to be in possession of a property on condition that he should run a hotel for the service to the passengers at the bus stop of the respondent-Transport Corporation. The period of the agreement has expired long before and the appellant is holding over.

3. According to the appellant, he is a lessee in respect of the said property. According to the respondent, he is a licensee. Petitioner-appellant has been served with a notice by one of the officers of the respondent-Corporation to vacate or else to face eviction. Before, however, the instant suit, the appellant came to this Court with a writ petition in W.P. No. 5714 of 1993 seeking interference of the Court to restrain the respondent from auctioning the property for indu