Rakesh Sharma, J. - (1.) THE above mentioned second appeals being connected matters have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment and order.
(2.) SECOND Appeals No. 262 and 263 and 264 of 1998 involving common questions of law were ordered to be connected and listed for admission alongwith Second Appeal No. 257 of 1998, Chandra Kishore v. Union of India and Anr. vide following order of this Court passed on 8.6.1998: The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of railways informs that the Petitioner can only be thrown out of possession in accordance with law. According to him the law is that after the expiry of period of licence the Petitioner can be thrown out by the help of police. He failed to show the law wherein it has been provided that the Petitioner can be thrown out by the help of the police. However, he has relied upon a decision of this Hon'ble Court rendered in Writ Petition No. 25682 of 1992. Shri N.K. Seth, advocate appearing on behalf of Appellants has placed reliance upon a judgment in Krishna Ram Mahale (dead)by his L.Rs. v. Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao : AIR 1989 SC 2097. The paragraph 8 of the judgment indicates the ratio of the law laid down by the Apex Court: It is well settled law in this country that where a person is in possession of property, even on the assumption that he had no right to remain on the property, he cannot be dispossessed by the owner of the property except by recourse to law. The Apex Court has relied upon the various judgments as well. The judgment cited by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has force of law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Shri N.K. Seth further informs that one of the Appeal No. 257 of 1998 has already been admitted and it has been ordered that the parties to maintain status quo. Accordingly connect this appeal with Second Appeal No. 257 of 1998 and list for admission in the month of August, 1998. Till then the parties are directed to maintain status quo. All the three appeals, namely, Second Appeals No. 262, 263 and 264 of 1998, were filed raising identical and similar questions of law as were raised in Second Appeal No. 257 of 1998, which was already admitted by this Court on 29.5.1998 by passing the following order: Sri R.D. Agarwal has accepted notice on behalf of the Respondents, hence notices need not go. Meanwhile the parties are directed to maintain status quo as it exists today.
(3.) THE question of law framed at serial No. 1, on which Second Appeal No. 257 of 1998 was admitted for adjudication vide order dated 29.5.1998, is as under: Whether in view of the settled law it could be held that the Appellant is not a 'tenant' but a 'licensee' in respect of a shop?;