SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(All) 213

G.S.N.TRIPATHI
ATMA PRAKASH – Appellant
Versus
RAGHUBIR PRASAD GOEL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Anurag Pathak, C.P.MISHRA, Ravi Kant, S.K.Tyagi, SUBODH KUMAR, U.K.MISHRA,

G. S. N. TRIPATHI, J.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the concurrent judgment of the courts below holding that the plaintiff was a licensee, whose licence has been revoked by filing a suit, it has been further held that since the licence has been revoked, the plaintiff can be evicted without adopting due process of law as he is a mere trespasser.

2. The plaintiff Atma Prakash filed D. S. No. 90 of 1986, Atma Prakash v. Raghubir Prasad Goel in the Court of Munsif, Roorkee, Distt. Hardwar for a per manent injunction to restrain the defendant from evicting him except in accordance with law and not in an unauthorised manner. The plaintiff alleged that he was a tenant from the days of Rishipal. Rishipal had transferred the property to the defendant on 16- 10-85 and now the defendant wants to evict him unauthorisedly and unlawfully. Therefore, he prayed that he should be evicted, if at all, only through the adoption of due process of law.

3. The defence mainly was that the plaintiff was not a tenant. He was simply a licensee/care taken on behalf of Rishipal, from whom the defendant has purchased the property. The plaintiff had also agreed to hand over the peaceful possession o
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

None.

The provided case law <02500064086> states that "a licensee can only be evicted in accordance with the law and not by force," which appears to be a straightforward legal principle without any indication of subsequent treatment such as overruing, reversing, or criticism. There is no evidence from the listing that this case has been discredited or treated as bad law in later decisions.

Followed or Uncertain Treatment:

The case law does not explicitly mention being followed, distinguished, criticized, or questioned by subsequent decisions. Given the lack of such language, we cannot definitively categorize it as followed or overruled. It remains a standalone statement of law based on the information provided.

None.

The treatment of the case law is sufficiently clear from the provided description, which does not indicate any subsequent judicial treatment that would categorize it as overruled, criticized, or otherwise negatively treated.

**Source :** Parashram VS Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur - Allahabad

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top