Persons in settled possession can only be evicted by process of law.

Honourable Chief Justice

By this common judgment, we dispose off the aforesaid two writ appeals, viz. W.A. No.1172 of 2005, filed against the order dated 15-03-2005 passed by the learned single Judge, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant and W.A. No.1455 of 2005, filed against the interlocutory order dated 25-4-2005, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.M.P. No.14987 of 2005 in W.P. No.13681 of 2005.

3. Facts, in brief, are: The appellant in both these appeals was the lessee in respect of the building belonging to the respondent-Municipality, wherein he was running a hotel business since 1988. When the lease period, which was renewed periodically once in three years, expired on 31-3-2005, the respondent-Municipality refused to grant further renewal of the lease in favour of the appellant and directed him to vacate the building as it was resolved by the Municipality to demolish the existing structure and to put up a new construction and to lease out the building by way of public auction. Aggrieved, the appellant filed W.P. No.8726 of 2005 and sought for renewal of the lease for a further period of three years, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge on the ground that the appellant has no statutory right to insist upon the renewal of the lease in his favour. In the mean time, a Councillor of the Municipality filed a writ petition (W.P. No.13681 of 2005) and in the said writ petition, the learned single Judge passed an interlocutory order, directing the respondents 1 to 3 therein to take possession of the hotel building in compliance of the resolution dated 31-1-2005 passed by the respondent-Municipality and the consequent proceedings of the third respondent dated 1-3-2005. Aggrieved by these orders, the appellant is before us.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the dispossession of the appellant from the building in question was illegal as the respondent-Municipality ejected him without taking recourse to a court of law and, therefore, prayed for the restoration of the appellant's possession. Learned counsel further argued that the appellant was not put on notice and was not heard before the impugned interlocutory order was passed directing the respondent-Municipality to take possession of the hotel-building. On the other hand, it was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the first respondent in W.A. No.1455 of 2005 that it was not obligatory on the part of the respondent-Municipality to take recourse to law and obtain an order for possession from the civil court or from a statutory authority concerned before it could eject the appellant and, therefore, the respondent-Municipality was justified in dispossessing the appellant from the building in question on the expiry of the lease granted in his favour.

6. We do not agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel that it was not obligatory on the part of the Municipality to take recourse to a court of law and obtain an eviction decree before ejecting the appellant from the property. It is settled law by a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court that when a person is in settled possession of a property, even on the assumption that he had no right to remain on the property, he cannot be dispossessed by the owner of the property except through a decree of a court of law – vide RAME GOWDA v. M. VARADAPPA NAIDU (2004[1] SCC 769).

7. The Supreme Court in Rame Gowda's case (supra) approved the law as stated by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Yar Mohammed v. Lakshmi Das (AIR 1959 All. 1) in which it was observed as follows:

"Law respects possession even if there is no title to support it. It will not permit any person to take the law in his own hands and to dispossess a person in actual possession without having recourse to a court. No person can be allowed to become a judge in his own