Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

• Case Overview: This is a Second Appeal wherein the appellant, Billoo (a licensee operating a tea stall), challenged the dismissal of his suit for a permanent injunction against the Nagar Palika Parishad regarding unauthorized eviction. The lower courts had affirmed that the eviction was lawful, but this court found the eviction arbitrary due to a lack of due process. (!) (!)
• Factual Background: The appellant was granted a license by the Nagar Palika in 1995 to operate a tea stall on a specific piece of land. He constructed a "Khokha" (stall) there and paid rent. However, the Nagar Palika failed to extend the license or accept the settled rent, and subsequently threatened to remove the tea stall by force in July 2002 without issuing any prior notice. (!) (!) (!)
• Procedural Violations (Due Process): The core issue was whether the authorities could evict a licensee without following legal procedures. The court found that the Nagar Palika did not issue any prior notice to terminate the license or direct the appellant to vacate the premises before attempting forceful eviction. This absence of notice rendered the eviction arbitrary and illegal. (!) (!) (!)
• Violation of CPC Order 41 Rule 31: The court noted that the judgment of the first Appellate Court (Civil Appeal No. 49 of 2011) suffered from a legal lacuna because it failed to formulate or answer the "Point of Determination" as required by Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Consequently, the appellate judgment was quashed for non-compliance with this procedural rule. (!) (!) (!)
• Court's Findings and Ruling: The Supreme Court of Uttarakhand held that even an unauthorized occupant cannot be evicted without due process, and this applies strictly to licensees who have permissive possession. Since the Nagar Palika failed to issue a prior notice, their action was contrary to basic legal norms. The Second Appeal was allowed, the lower court judgments were quashed, and the suit was decreed, permitting eviction only after adhering to the due process under the U.P. Municipalities Act. (!) (!) (!) (!)
• Outcome: The eviction attempt by the Nagar Palika in 2002 was declared illegal. The appellant is entitled to remain in possession until proper legal notices and procedures are followed. No order was made regarding costs. (!) (!)