JUDGMENT ORDER Arun Bhansali, J. - This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.01.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Abu Road, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC has been rejected. 2. The appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent with the averments that a land admeasuring 6 Feet X 8 Feet was allotted to the appellant on licence. The appellant placed her Cabin at the said place with the permission of the respondent and after the period of licence was over, the appellant continued to pay the enhanced licence-fee. Whereafter, when orally she was required to vacate the premises, the suit was filed seeking permanent injunction on the ground that as the respondents have accepted the enhanced licence-fee, the appellant cannot be evicted. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC was filed by the respondent based on the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1964 (''the Act''). The trial court accepted the application filed by the respondents and rejected the plaint. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed first appeal. Alongwith the appeal, an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC was filed, inter alia, with the averments that the respondent was auctioning the site in question and, therefore, it be restrained from doing so. 4. The first appellate court after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that besides the fact that licence of the appellant was already over, even under the licence, there was an Arbitration Clause and as the appellant had not approached the named Arbitrator, the suit even otherwise was not maintainable. The appellate court also came to the conclusion that as already the shop in question has been seized and, if the same is not auctioned by the respondent, the visitors/travellers to the Bus Stand would suffer and, therefore, did not find any balance of convenience/irreparable injury in favour of the appellant and, consequently dismissed the application. 5. The appellate court also came to the conclusion that as already the shop in question has been seized and, if the same is not auctioned by the respondent, the visitors/travellers to the Bus Stand would suffer and, therefore, did not find any balance of convenience/irreparable injury in favour of the appellant and, consequently dismissed the application. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellate court was not justified in dismissing the application filed by the appellant, inasmuch as, the respondent could only take action against the appellant under the provisions of the Act and as no action has been taken against the appellant under the provisions of the Act, the land/portion where the appellant''s Cabin is standing, cannot be reauctioned and the appellant could not have been evicted. Further submissions have been made that the trial court had wrongly dismissed the suit under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 CPC as no proceedings under the Act have been initiated and on that count also the injunction should have been granted in favour of the appellant. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record. 7. It is not in dispute that the land in question was licenced to the appellant for a period of one year, which was extendable to three years and at the end of three years, the licence came to an end. Whereafter, when despite receipt of enhanced licence-fee, the appellant was required to vacate the premises, the appellant filed the suit and apparently obtained injunction. Whereafter when an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC was filed, the suit was dismissed. 8. Whereafter, when despite receipt of enhanced licence-fee, the appellant was required to vacate the premises, the appellant filed the suit and apparently obtained injunction. Whereafter when an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC was filed, the suit was dismissed. 8. The very fact that the appellant got into possession based on the licence, which licence admittedly had come to an end on 03.08.2011, the basis sought to be projected by the appellant that as the respondent has received the enhanced licence-fee from the appellant, she had a right to remain in possession of the land in question in perpetuity does not have any basis in law and in that view of the matter irrespective of the plea sought to be raised regarding the applicability of the Act of 1964 and/or non-issuance of notice in that regard, no case for interference in the order passed by the first appellate court rejecting the appellant''s application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC is made out. There is no substance in the appeal, the same, therefore, dismissed.