1. This civil revision is filed against the order passed by VIth Civil Judge Class II, Gwalior dated 27.7.2011 whereby application of petitioner preferred under Order 7 rule 11 CPC was rejected.

2. Draped in brevity, the facts are that the petitioner is a charitable trust. Respondent No.1 filed a suit for injunction against the petitioner No.1 stating that the premises owned by him is in his occupation since last 26 years. The said premises was allotted to him as he was in service of petitioners. It is urged in the plaint that petitioners after discharge of respondent from the service, did not provide any plot to him nor any amount in lieu thereof is paid to him. Respondent No.1/plaintiff further stated that on 12.6.2010 petitioners along with other officers and employees threatened him to vacate the said house. This compelled him to file the civil suit. It is prayed that plaintiff be not dispossessed without following due process of law. The petitioners and respondent No.2 filed their written statement wherein plaint allegations were denied. It is stated that respondent himself submitted his resignation which was accepted and accordingly, he was discharged from the services of the petitioners. Accommodation in question was given to plaintiff on account of his employment. Thus after discharge from service, he has no right to continue in said accommodation. It was co-terminus to his employment. Plaintiff is unauthorizedly residing in the accommodation. He cannot be treated to be in valid possession. Petitioners on 28.2.2011 filed an application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint on the ground that suit filed by respondent No.1 is barred by provision of section 34 of Specific Relief Act. It does not disclose any right and cause of action. Earlier application preferred under Order 7 rule 11 CPC was rejected against which Civil Revision No.69/2011 was filed. This civil revision was permitted to be withdrawn by this Court on 6.7.2011 with the liberty to file a properly constituted application. In turn, a fresh application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC (Annexure P-4) was filed. Learned trial Court heard the parties on this application and dismissed the same with cost of Rs. 100/-. This order is called in question in this petition.

3. Shri Ankur Mody, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that plaintiff by no stretch of imagination can claim any right on the accommodation. He was given accommodation because of his employment. Once employee- employer relation comes to an end, the plaintiff has no right whatsoever to continue in the accommodation. He submits that possession means a possession based on some right. Reliance is placed on section 34 of Specific Relief Act. He submits that Court below has erred in rejecting the application of the petitioners. He relied on certain judgments in support of his contention.

4. Shri Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff, submits that order of Court below dated 27.7.2011 is in accordance with law and does not require any interference at this stage. By placing reliance on (1999)4 SCC 403 (Prataprai N. Kothari v. John Braganza) he submits that this is trite law that even an encroacher or trespasser cannot be removed without following due process of law. He also contends that while deciding an application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC, the Court below was only required to see the plaint averments. The plaint averments are sufficient to show that triable issue is there before the trial Court. The other things are matter of evidence. The parties advanced arguments only to the extent indicated above.

5. I have heard the parties and perused the record.

6. This is settled law that at the time of deciding application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC, the trial Court is not required to examine anything beyond the plaint averments. In para 3 of plaint reads as under :

ß3- ;gfd] oknh E;qft;e lfefr esa lu~ 1984 ¼mUuhl lkS pkSjklh½ ls bysDVªhf'k;u ds in ij ¼t; foykl iSysl½ esa dk;Z fd