ORDER P. Naveen Rao, J. 1. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. Second petitioner was granted letter of intent and agreement was signed on 30.12.2003 to establish a retail petroleum outlet. Second petitioner, his brother and father instituted OS No. 167 of 2005 on the file of the V Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District praying for eviction and recovery of possession and recovery of arrears against respondent corporation. Suit was decreed on 24.2.2010. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment, respondent corporation filed AS No. 492 of 2010 and this Court by order dated 28.9.2010 granted interim stay of dispossession. Thus, the respondent corporation herein is not dispossessed from the premises and as a licensee petitioners are operating the retail outlet. Alleging that petitioners have not signed dealership agreement in spite of repeated requests made and correspondence, by orders dated 2.7.2014 the respondent corporation decided to discontinue the supplies. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner instituted this writ petition. 2. Learned Counsel for petitioners submits that the order discontinuing the supplies was not preceded by any notice and in fact such an order was served much later and even before an adverse order is served, supplies were discontinued causing huge financial loss to the petitioners. Respondent corporation could not have taken immediate decision to discontinue the supplies. 3. Learned Standing Counsel on instructions submits that supplies are discontinued since petitioners have not signed the dealership agreement and it is the policy of the respondent corporation that unless dealership agreements are signed petroleum products would not be supplied. Petitioners were informed to sign the dealership agreements, but they did not respond to the requests made by the respondent corporation and therefore the respondent corporation has no option but to stop the supplies. 4. On this objection, learned Counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners have succeeded in OS No. 165 of 2005 and on account of the interim direction granted by this Court in first appeal filed by the respondent corporation, the possession is not delivered to the petitioners and signing of any agreement or giving of any undertaking to respondent corporation will compromise the rights accrued to the petitioners on account of the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court and would compromise the defence of the petitioners in the first appeal pending before this Court. Therefore petitioners were resisting signing of any such agreement. Learned Counsel further submits that petitioners have been undertaking the business all along and suddenly raising this objection is not bona fide and is nothing but arm twisting tactic by the respondent corporation. Learned Counsel for petitioners also apprehends that in terms of the provisions contained in the dealership agreement formulated by the respondent corporation, there is possibility of respondent corporation using the terms of the agreement for inducting a new dealer. 5. The objection of the petitioners appears to be not valid. The relationship of the petitioners with the respondent corporation to undertake sale of the petroleum products is one of contract. Without there being an agreement, the petitioners cannot compel the respondent corporation to supply the petroleum products. The terms agreement determines the relationship between petitioners and respondent corporation and petitioners cannot insist for supply of petroleum products without signing dealership agreement. The issue of eviction proceedings and to recover the possession as well as arrears of amounts due is a matter pending consideration before this Court in AS No. 492 of 2010. Merely because an appeal is pending, petitioners cannot refuse to sign the dealership agreement. 6. Learned Counsel for petitioners on instructions submits that petitioners are willing to sign the dealership agreement provided the respondents do not use the same against the petitioners in the pending appeal in AS No. 492 of 2010 to weaken their defence. 7. Having regard to the submissions made, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to enter into dealership agreement with the respondent corporation and as and when such an agreement is entered into, the respondent corporation shall restore the supplies as hitherto supplied. However, entering into such dealership agreement cannot amount to surrendering their rights flowing out of decree passed in OS No. 165 of 2005 which is the subject-matter in AS No. 492 of 2010 and respondent corporation cannot use the same against the petitioners in the pending AS No. 492 of 2010. No costs. Sequel to the disposal of the writ petition, miscellaneous petitions, if any stand closed.