Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) The case is taken up in the revised list. None has appeared for the respondents. I have heard Sri Dhruva Narayana, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
(2.) His contention is that before the Court below it was a case that the landlord wanted to forcibly evict the appellant who was tenant in the shop in dispute. He has relied upon a judgment rendered in Ram Rattan and others v. State ofUttar Pradesh, AIR 1977 SC 619, in which it has been held that a true owner has every right to dispossess or throw out a trespasser, while the trespasser is in the act, or process of trespassing, and has not accomplished his possession, but this right is not available to the true owner if the trespasser has been successful in accomplishing his possession to the knowledge of the true owner. In such circumstances the law requires that the true owner should dispossess the trespasser by taking recourse to the remedies available under the law.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following excerpt of the judgment dated 1.10.2005 of the first Appellate Court. JUDGEMENT_728_ADJ6_2010Image1.jpg JUDGEMENT_728_ADJ6_2010Image2.jpg;