A licensee whose license has been revoked can only be evicted through due process of law and not by force.

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against the concurrent judgment of the courts below holding that the plaintiff was a licensee, whose licence has been revoked by filing a suit, it has been further held that since the licence has been revoked, the plaintiff can be evicted without adopting due process of law as he is a mere trespasser.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 of the property to the defendant at the time of sale-deed as and when required by the defendant. The character of the plaintiff was that of the mere licensee, whose licence has been revoked and his occupation is that of a trespasser. He is liable to be evicted even otherwise.

4. The learned Munsif framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the plaintiff was a tenant of the defendant on a monthly basis.

(2) Whether the plaintiff was a care taker as alleged?

(3) Whether the relationship between the parties was that of a landlord and tenant? and if so, effect?

(4) Whether the suit is barred by Sections 12 and 13 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972?

(5) Relief?

The learned Munsif found issue No. 2 in affirmative. Other issues were found in negative. It was held that the plaintiff was merely a licensee and his licence has been revoked and he was liable to be evicted at any time as a trespasser.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Munsif the plaintiff filed a Civil Appeal No. 40 of 96, which was heared and decided by the learned Civil Judge, Roorkee on 23-9-88, whereby his appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower court has been affirmed.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred this Second Appeal.

7. The appeal was admitted on questions No. 1, 2, 6 and 7 as framed in the memo of appeal, which are as follows :

(1) Whether after the revocation of the licence of a person, he can be evicted without adopting the proper form and by force ?

(2) Whether an unauthorised occupant can be evicted by force/without proper decree or order from the courts of law?

(3) Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be quashed by this Court?

(4) Whether the provisions of Section 38 (2) (3) (d) of the Specific Relief Act can protect the suit of the appellant for permanent injunction?

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and also after perusing the affidavit dated 25-4-80, specially paragraph 5, filed by Sri Raghubir Prasad Goel, defendant-respondent that "answering respondent undertakes that he will not evict the appellant otherwise than in accordance with law", the appeal is being disposed of with the following observations.

9. My attention has been invited to an observation of this Court in the case of Parasuram v. Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur, 1981 AWC 151. The following observa tions have been relied upon:

"it is true that under Sections 293 and 296 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam the licenses is liable to be evicted without notice by Mukhya Nagar Adhikari of the Nagar Mahapalika. That, however, does not authorise the Nagar Mahapalika Adhikari to evict the licensee by force. Even if he is to be evicted, he can be evicted only in accordance with the law and not, by force