M. Venugopal, J.

1. The Appellants/Petitioners have preferred the present intra-court Writ Appeal as against the Order dated 03.02.2017 in W.P.No.2665 of 2017 passed by the Learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition.

2. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Petitioners and the Learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondents 1 and 2. In view of the fact that this Court is disposing of the present Writ Appeal at the admission stage itself, it is not ordering notice to the Respondents 3 to 9 and issuance of notice is dispensed with.

3. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants contends that the order of the Learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition is opposed to the well settled ‘Principles of Law and Facts of the Case’. In this connection, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants that the reasons assigned in the impugned order passed by the Learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition suffers from fundamental flaw. Furthermore, the Learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate that the question of ‘Lawful Possession’ is for the Civil Court to consider and the same is not to be determined in the Writ Proceedings, as a 'Question of Fact' especially, when no pleadings were made in regard to the same and without evidence being adduced thereto.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants projects an argument that the Learned Single Judge had failed to take note of a primordial fact that the 'Petroleum Rules' adopted the term 'Right to use the property and not lawful possession'.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants also points out that applicability of the City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 was not considered by the Learned Single Judge and also not taken into consideration of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court between Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., and Another Vs. N.R. Vairamani and Another reported in 2004 (8) SCC 579.

6. The facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The 1st Appellant is operating a Retail outlet of Petrol/Diesel/Motor Oil etc., in the premises No.266, Gandhi Road, Arni, Thiruvannamalai District (on behalf of the Appellants' firm) along with his father, 2nd Appellant. In fact, the premises was originally leased out to 3rd Respondent/Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Chennai by late Mr. Gnanasambhanda Chettiar acting as 'Power of Attorney' in the year 1977.

(ii) A Memorandum of Agreement dated 22.03.1977 was entered into between the 3rd Respondent and Karthikeyan Auto Services represented by its then partners.

(iii) After numerous family arrangements and partition, one A.S. Karthikeyan acquired right over the Appellants' firm, who thereafter in the year 1995, entered into a Partnership Deed with the 2nd Appellant by running the petrol outlet as 3rd Respondent's Dealer. After reconstitution of the Firm, Mrs. K. Padmini, wife of late A.S. Karthikeyan and the Appellants are partners.

7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants brings it to the notice of this Court that the aforesaid Gnanasambhanda Chettiar made a representation before the 1st Respondent/Transport Commissioner, Chepauk, Chennai to cancel the No Objection Certificate granted to the 3rd Respondent, based on the reason that the 'Lease' with the 3rd Respondent/Hindustan Petroleum Corporation had expired. Under the circumstances, the said Gnanasambhanda Chettiar's Legal Heirs, who were impleaded as Respondents 4 to 9, filed a Writ Petition No.1232 of 2015 before this Court seeking to direct the 1st Respondent in the said Writ Petition to pass final orders on their representation dated 28.02.2014. The 1st Appellant's father, viz., the 2nd Appellant was shown as Respondent.

8. It transpires that this Court on 24.04.2015 in W.P.No.12302 of 2015 had passed an order directing the 1st Respondent therein to dispose of the representation dated 28.02.2014 after putting notice to his father (who was 2nd Respondent in the said Writ petition). Pursuant to the same, 2nd Respondent, the District Colle