Heard the appellant’s counsel at the time of admission.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.7315/2009 on the file of the XXXIX Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. She filed the suit for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession and supervisory work of toilets and urinals under her supervision and also for a direction for not allotting the said toilets and urinals to any third party. It is her case that she was supervising the toilets and urinals said to have been allotted to her by the defendants, in the year 2007. She has stated that she has been maintaining the toilets and urinals very cleanly. This being the state of affairs, the subordinates of the 2nd defendant threatened her that she should vacate and handover the vacant possession of public toilet under her maintenance. Therefore she filed the suit.

3. The defendants 1 and 2 contended that the maintenance of toilets and urinals will be allotted to the ex-employees of the Corporation for a period of one year only and after completion of one year, the maintenance of the toilets will be entrusted to some other persons who will be selected on the basis of seniority on the representations given by them. The public toilet which is the subject matter of the suit was earlier allotted to one Narasaiah, a retired employee of the Corporation. The said toilets have not been allotted to the plaintiff and therefore she is not entitled to claim the same.

4. The trial court after recording evidence dismissed the suit. Hence, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal. The trial court has referred to answers given by PW1 in the cross-examination to come to conclusion that the suit deserves to be dismissed. PW1 in the cross examination has clearly stated that the defendant – Corporation has not passed any order allotting the toilets and urinals to her for maintenance purpose. She has also admitted that the work was earlier entrusted to one Narasaiah for a period of one year. Based on these answers the trial court drew an inference that the plaintiff was not an allottee of the toilets and urinals and therefore she cannot claim to be in possession of these toilets as on the date of suit.

5. I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the trial court. The plaintiff is not the allottee of the public toilet for its maintenance purpose. If she is the allottee she should have produced the order passed by the defendant appointing her to maintain the toilets and urinals.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that if at all the plaintiff has to be evicted, it can be only under the provisions of Karnataka Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants Act, 1974 and that the defendants have not taken any action. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that before initiating action, the plaintiff filed the suit and obtained an order of injunction and therefore the defendants could not initiate any action. Therefore it is clear that plaintiff’s grievance is that she was sought to be evicted from the public toilet under her supervision without following the due process of law. If at all the plaintiff is to be evicted, it can be only through due process of law. The trial court has clearly come to conclusion that the plaintiff does not possess any authority to claim possession of the public toilet said to be under her supervision. This being the case, I do not find merit to admit this appeal. Appeal dismissed.