ORDER : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. Heard learned counsel representing the appellant. Perused the impugned judgments. 2. The instant second appeal has been preferred by the appellant Ravi Kumar being aggrieved of the judgment-cum-decree dated 19.10.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Chittorgarh in Civil First Appeal No. 119/2013 whereby, the learned first appellate court, affirmed the judgment-cum-decree dated 17.01.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Single (Sr. Division) No. 1, Chittorgarh in Civil Original Case No. 05/2011 whereby, the suit preferred by the plaintiff appellant was rejected. 3. The plaintiff appellant applied for being appointed as a Retail Outlet Dealer of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the BPCL'). His application was accepted and the letter of intent dated 22.09.2001 was issued in his favour. He procured the land for setting up of the Retail Outlet and the requisite licences. A registered lease deed was executed by the appellant for the land in question in favour of the respondent BPCL. However, it appears that all the allotments made during the said period came into scanner of Hon'ble the Prime Minister who declared that they should be cancelled. The Empowered Committee of the BPCL formed under the directions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court did not approve the allotment made in favour of the plaintiff appellant and the dealership came to an end. The plaintiff submitted that the lease agreement was suo motu cancelled with the non-approval of his allotment and thus, the respondents be injuncted not to interfere in his possession on the land in question. 4. The respondent Corporation, filed a written statement claiming that it had set up the Retail Outlet on the land in question by spending a huge sum of money. Merely because the dealership of the plaintiff came to an end, the lien of the Company on the land and the infrastructure set up by it would not come to an automatic end. The Company spent lacs of rupees to set up the pump on the land which is being operated by the Company itself. The term of the lease was for a period of 19 years odd and thus, the plaintiff could not claim that the lease stood automatically terminated with the non-approval of his dealership. 5. The Company spent lacs of rupees to set up the pump on the land which is being operated by the Company itself. The term of the lease was for a period of 19 years odd and thus, the plaintiff could not claim that the lease stood automatically terminated with the non-approval of his dealership. 5. After considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances as available on the record, the trial court came to a conclusion that possession over the land in question was that of the respondent Corporation which set up the fuel pump thereupon with its own expenses and was operating the same. The suit for injunction could not be maintained in absence of possession of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the same was dismissed vide judgment-cum-decree dated 17.01.2012. The first appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment-cum-decree passed by the trial court too has been rejected as stated above by the judgment-cum-decree dated 19.10.2015. 6. After having heard and appreciating the arguments advanced at Bar and after going through the entire material available on the record, this Court is of the firm opinion that the instant second appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. The proposed questions framed by the appellant's counsel in the memorandum of appeal are simple questions of facts rather than being questions of law. Admittedly, the possession over the suit premises was that of the respondent Corporation which is running a Retail Outlet thereupon. Thus, the trial court rightly held that the suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable. 7. Two courts of competent jurisdiction have recorded concurrent findings of facts against the plaintiff appellant while dismissing his suit as well as appeal. The appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. The impugned judgment-cum-decree dated 19.10.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Chittorgarh as well as the impugned judgment-cum-decree dated 17.01.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Single (Sr. Division) No. 1, Chittorgarh ex-facie do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity whatsoever and are affirmed. 8. I find no merit in the instant second appeal which is not fit to be admitted and hence the same is rejected. The decree be prepared accordingly. 9. The record be returned to the trial court forthwith.