JUDGMENT By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgments and orders dated 16.12.2003 and 15.1.2004 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Haridwar and District Judge, Haridwar respectively. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the land measuring 25 x 25 yards known as lot No.2 Mayapur Hardwar Range was given on lease to Swami Anand Dev Guru of the petitioner @ Rs. 10/- per annum. 3. The petitioner has submitted that after the death of Swami Anand Dev he is in occupation of the land in dispute as lessee. The petitioner claimed to be the Sanyasi is performing Sadhna, Pooja-Archana in the property in dispute. Since the respondents have threatened him to dispossess therefore he has filed the suit bearing O.S. No. 307/2003 alongwith the stay 'application' seeking ad-interim Injunction. The interim relief application was refused by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Haridwar. Aggrieved against the said order dated 16.12.2003, the petitioner went in appeal. The Appellate Court bearing Appeal No. 56/2003 has also dismissed the appeal. 4. The short question raised by the petitioner is that since the lease was granted in the year 1972, therefore he is continuing in his possession. 5. Both the Courts below has recorded a finding that the lease in favour of the petitioner was only existing up till 1997 and, therefore, both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that there is no prima-facie case, balance of convenience or irreparable injury to the petitioner. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned Appellate Court has recorded a finding that the petitioner is paying the lease rent in spite of the fact that the lease had expired in 1997 and, for a further period of 10 years the matter has been recommended by the Director Rajaji National Park and matter is pending for renewal. 7. Sri N.C. Gupta, learned standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has argued that he has already taken the possession of the disputed land. 8. Counsel for the petitioner has disputed this fact and contend that he is in possession as hold over in spite of the fact that the period of lease had already expired. 7. Sri N.C. Gupta, learned standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has argued that he has already taken the possession of the disputed land. 8. Counsel for the petitioner has disputed this fact and contend that he is in possession as hold over in spite of the fact that the period of lease had already expired. Since he is also in possession, therefore, he is entitled for the protection under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act. 9. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was already a lease in favour of the petitioner which had been expired, but thereafter possession of the land is still with the petitioner. The respondent had submitted that the petitioner is not in possession, therefore, no finding can be recorded as to whether the petitioner is entitled for any relief in proceedings under Order XXXIX, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. Learned standing Counsel has also argued that since the matter is already pending for consideration for the renewal before the Government and the lease has yet not been extended, therefore, no interference is required under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Since the lease in favour of the petitioner has already been expired in 1997 and the matter is still pending for consideration by the Government for renewal/extension. The injunction had also been refused by the two Courts below, therefore, liberty is given to the petitioner to pursue his renewal or extension of the lease. No interference is required under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the judgment of Ganga Saran reported in, 1991 (1) ARC Page 231 (FB). 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since both the Courts below have recorded the findings that the lease had already been expired, therefore, there is no prima-facie case in favour of the petitioner. I find no merit in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition dismissed. No order as to costs.