The main legal point established in the judgment is that a person in settled possession of property, even if considered a trespasser, is entitled to seek restoration of possession under Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and that forcible eviction must be in due course of law.

( 1 ) THIS is plaintiff's revision directed against trial Court's judgment and decree dated 4-11-87 passed dismissing his suit filed under Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ('the Act' for short) in O. S. No. 16/82, on the ground of Res-judicata. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were defendants 1 to 3 in the said suit.

( 2 ) THE parties hereto are referred to according to their respective position in the suit.

( 3 ) THE undisputed facts leading to this revision are as stated as under :the immoveable property in plaint 'a' schedule consisted of 8' open taxi shed which constitute a continous compact open structure with pillars and roof with wall and even flooring'; and 'the rooms situated in the bus-stand at Hampamakatta in the vicinity of the schedule A property' which is show in plaint B schedule. The same belonged to the defendant the-then Mangalore town Municipality which was converted and established into defendant No. 1, 'mangalore City Corporation" in the year 1980 under the Provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Corporation Act, 1976 ('the Corporation Act' for short ). The said property is, therefore, the 'public premises' within the meaning of Sec. 2 (e) of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised) Act, 1974 (the 'kar. P. P. Act' for short ). In March, 1969 possession of both these items of property was delivered to the original plaintiff M. S. Baliga, since deceased, by the then defendant Municipality for the purpose of running a canteen, on lease according to plaintiff and according to defendants on licence basis. According to plaintiff vast improvements and structural alterations in the suit property were made by him investing huge amounts to suit his hotel business and he had been carrying on his said business therein. In addition, the defendant-Municipality had also given him the property shown in plaint 'c' schedule for his business purpose. When he was so carrying on the said hotel business in the suit property he received the eviction notice dated 24-11-75 from defendant-municipality calling upon him to vacate the plaint schedule A and B property and deliver its vacant possession before 29-11-75, since in its meeting held on 31-1-74 the Municipal Council had resolved to vacate him from the said property. Then plaintiff filed two suits against defendants, viz. 1) O. S. No. 644/75 in respect of schedule B premises and 2) O. S. No. 645/75 in respect of schedule A premises, in the Court of Munsiff, Mangalore for the decrees of permanent injunction restraining defendants and its officials and agents, from interfering with his peaceful possession of the said property, pleading that he had been in actual possession and enjoyment thereof and was running the said hotel business on lease basis under defendant-Municipality.

( 4 ) BOTH suits were contested by defendants denying the plaint averments that the suit property was leased out to plaintiff and contending that he was in occupation thereof merely as a licencee which licence period had already expired. On merits both suits came to be dismissed on 31-7-1981 by the trial Court holding that plaintiff was in occupation of the defendant's suit property merely as a licencee for a period of 5 years and the period of said licence having expired on 31-3-74 his occupation thereof since then was that of a trespasser, and, as such, he was not entitled to the remedy of permanent injunction in respect thereof.

( 5 ) THEREAFTER, the defendant-corporation immediately commenced the process of evicting plaintiff from the said schedule 'a' and 'b' property on the night of 31-7-81 and took complete possession thereof on 1-8-1981 after removing all the articles therefrom with police help. The lists of those articles so removed by defendants from said property is given by the plaintiff in D and E schedules of the plaint, the correctness of which was not admitted by defendants.

( 6 ) HOWEVER, it is an admitted fact that possession of A and B schedule property