JUDGMENT

A. S. NAIDU, J. — After hearing the above case the learned Single Judge (Justice Naik) felt that the ratio of the decision in the case of M/s. Savani Transport Ltd. v. Kamaraju Bisoi (71) 1991 C.L.T. 40 : 1991 (II) OLR 446 : 1990 (3) OCR 569 needs to be considered by a Larger Bench. Accordingly, the matter was placed before us.

2. For the sake of brevity the concluding paragraph of the decision of the learned Single Judge is quoted herein below :

“It, therefore, follows that possession of a tenant whose tenancy has been terminated may not always be lawful possession, but it is juridical possession which is protected by law because even a tenant whose tenancy has been terminated, cannot be dis¬possessed except in accordance with law. If that be so, can it amount to criminal trespass within the meaning of Sec. 441, I.P.C. (Orissa Amendment). This question, in my opinion needs to be considered by a larger Bench and the decision in the case of M/s. Savani Transport Ltd. (supra) needs to be reconsidered.

3. Before answering the question framed, it would be just and proper to refer to the provisions contained in Sec. 441, I.P.C. as amended by the Orissa Act 22 of 1986 which is q