Order Heard Mr. R.K. Rajan on I.A. No.5465 of 1997 for staying the impugned order dated 15th September, 1997 passed by the D.I.G., C.R.P.F., Mokama Ghat whereby the petitioner's application for renewal of the licence in extending the period with effect from 21st September, 1996 has been rejected and the petitioner has been directed to remove antenna installed by him after 21.9.1997 within three days, i.e. 24.9.1997. 2. It is submitted that by virtue of an agreement dated 22nd September, 1995 arrived at between the parties, i.e. the petitioner and D.I.G., C.R.P.F., Mokama Ghat, the petitioner has been granted a licence to instal the antenna for one year, i.e. with effect from 22nd September, 1995 to 22nd September, 1996. It is admited position that after the lapse of contractual period of licence neither the licence is renewed nor the petitioner is permhted to remain in possession in pursuance of the licence agreement dated 22nd September, 1995. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot be evicted from the premises except in due process of law, i.e. applying the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). 4. Having heard argument and perusing the document referred to in this petition and particularly the agreement arrived at between the parties on 22nd September, 1995 (which was shown to us during the course of argument by learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. R.K. Rajan), we are of the considered opinion that since the licence granted to the petitioner has already come to an end on 21st September, 1996, the petitioner's occupation of the premises is unauthorised one. The provision of the Act applies where tenancy is created by lease but nothing has been brought on record to suggest that lease was created in favour of the petitioner. Thus, in our view the D.I.G., C.R.P.F., Mokama Ghat has rightly issued order for removal of antenna. The application (I.A. No. 5465 of 1997) thus has no merit. Accordingly it is rejected. 5. Learned counsel, however, submitted that a month's time may be granted so as to enable the petitioner to remove the antenna and other apparatus attached to it. The order impugned is passed on 15th September, 1997 affording reasonable time to remove the antenna. Thereafter about three months are passing, instead of removing the antenna resort of challenging the impugned order was taken. The order impugned is passed on 15th September, 1997 affording reasonable time to remove the antenna. Thereafter about three months are passing, instead of removing the antenna resort of challenging the impugned order was taken. Therefore, the submission made for further time is rejected. Since the disposal of the stay application also covers the main relief sought for in the writ petition, therefore, we dispose of this writ petition finally. 6. At the end learned counsel prays for a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court. In our opinion, no substantial question of law of general importance is involved. Therefore, this oral prayer is rejected.