The main legal point established in the judgment is that a person in settled possession of premises, even after the termination of a license, has the right to resist any invasion of their possession and is entitled to an injunction against eviction, emphasizing the need for possession to be obtained by due process of law.

( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 13th March, 2001 passed by learned Additional district Judge dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order of the Civil judge dated 17th February, 2000. The facts in brief relevant for deciding this petition are:

( 2 ) THE petitioner was granted the licence by the respondents for running a tourist campat Qudsia Garden, Opposite Kashmere Gate, Delhi. An agreement was entered into between the parties on 8th November, 1976 and the same was valid for a period of five years from the date of the agreement. Though the licence was initially for a fixed period of five years but the same was extended by the respondents regularly from time to time and the last extension was for the period ending 8th November, 1996. When the camp site was initially allotted to the petitioner in November, 1976 rent/licence fee of Rs. 8,551/- was fixed. With the licence being extended from time to time, the petitioner came to pay lastly a sum of rs. 50,000/- per month as the licence fee. The respondent, it appears refused to renew the licence after November, 1996 and by letter dated 8th April, 1997 it informed the petitioner that the licence had expired on 8th November, 1996 and the petitioner, therefore, should remove himself from the site and hand over possession of the same to the respondents. This action of the respondents threatening to lake possession of the site resulted in the petitioner filing suit for perpetual injunction for restraining the defendants/respondents from taking forcible possession of any portion of the land allotted to the plaintiff/petitioner for running the tourist camp at Qudsia Garden, opposite I. S. B. T. , Kashmere Gate, Delhi except by the due process of law.

( 3 ) THE case set up by the petitioner was that though initially the licence was for a period of five years but the same had been extended by the defendants regularly as per routine and with the due permission and consent of the defendants/ respondents, the petitioner had made additions and alterations of permanent nature at the site and licence fee Rs. 50,000/- p. m. had been paid up to March, 1997. It was stated in the suit that the petitioners had in no way violated or committed breach of any of the terms of the agreement between the parties and the business was being run by the petitioners without any complaint from any quarter. It was stated that the petitioners had not been issued any show cause notice nor reasonable opportunity had been provided to them before calling upon them to hand over possession and in terms of the agreement, before the petitioner could be asked to hand over possession of the site, the respondents were required to offer compensation to the petitioner for the additions and alterations done by the petitioner at site with the approval of the respondents. It has also contended that though the agreement had been described as licence deed but the same in fact was a lease as the control of the entire area was exclusively with the petitioners and the respondents had no control over the same. It was stated that with the long user of the premises since 1976, a valuable right had accrued to the petitioner and they could not be dispossessed from the site without due process of law.

( 4 ) THE defendants/respondents filed written statement and took the plea that the licence of the petitioner having been revoked, the petitioners had become trespassers and had no right to maintain the present suit. It was also stated in the written statement that after the expiry of the licence granted to the petitioners, the petitioners did not have any right to continue to occupy the site. It was submitted that legal possession all along remained with the respondents and the petitioner was only enjoying the site with the consent and permission of the respondents. It is submitted in the written statement that there was no necessity of issuing any