- (1.) 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against the concurrent judgment of the courts below holding that the plaintiff was a licensee, whose licence has been revoked by filing a suit, it has been further held that since the licence has been revoked, the plaintiff can be evicted without adopting due process of law as he is a mere trespasser.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. 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 The character of the plaintiff was that of the mere licensee, whose licence has been revoked and his occupation is that of a trespasser.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. 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 It was held that the plaintiff was merely a licensee and his licence has been revoked and he was liable to be evicted at any time as a trespasser.
(3.) 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. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred this Second Appeal.;