JUDGMENT A.H. Saikia, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.N. Bhuyan, learned Counsel assisted by Mr. B.K. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant. None appears for the Respondents despite notice. 2. This Second Appeal assails the judgment and decree dated 7.4.98 passed by the learned District Judge, Kokrajhar in Title Appeal No. 6 of 1995 reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.11.95 rendered by learned Munsiff No. 1, Kokrajhar in Title Suit No. 52 of 1986 by which the suit instituted by the Appellant as Plaintiff was decreed holding that the Defendants No. 1 and 2 were trespasser into the said premises wherein the Plaintiff had the right and interest. 3. At the time of admission of this Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been framed. i) Whether the licencee of the land has no right to evict an encroacher in absence of title? ii) Whether the interpretation given by the lower appellate Court to the right of a licencee is correct in law? iii) Whether the licencee has the same right as that of an owner over the land during the continuance of licencee? 4. Mr. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel, before proceeding with his argument, has fairly submitted that he is not going to press that substantial question No. 3 so mentioned above rather he shall just confine his argument only to substantial questions No. 1 and 2. Arguing his limited point, Mr. Bhuyan, has contended that the learned Appellate Court was wrong in holding that the licencee had no right to evict the encroachers in the absence of any title though both the Courts below had held that the Appellant was a licencee. According to him, the Appellant has a limited right as regards seeking eviction of the encroachers or trespassers to the holding in question to which he has been given the licence. 5. To bolster up his submission, Mr. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel has relied on two decisions of the Apex Court namely (1) Khalil Ahmed Bashir Ahmed v. Tufelhussein Samasbhai Sarangpurwala reported in AIR 1988 SC 184 and (2) Corporation of Calicut v. K. Sreenivasan reported in (2002) 5 SCC 361 . 6. In Khalil Basir Ahmed case (supra), the Apex Court in paragraph 10 held that if permission to use land without exclusive possession was alone granted, the licence was the legal result. 7. 6. In Khalil Basir Ahmed case (supra), the Apex Court in paragraph 10 held that if permission to use land without exclusive possession was alone granted, the licence was the legal result. 7. Re-enforcing and reiterating the view expressed in Khalil's case (supra), the Supreme Court in Corporation of Calicut's case (supra) in paragraph 16 held that a licencee did not acquire any interest in the property by virtue of grant of licence in his favour in relation to any immovable property, but once the authority to occupy and use the same was granted in his favour by way of licence, he continued to exercise that right so long the authority has not expired or had not been determined for any reason whatsoever. 8. Having regard to the above decisions so cited by the learned senior Counsel and also upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties as well as on meticulous scanning of the impugned judgment and decree, it appears that admittedly the Appellant is a licencee to the N.F. Railway with regard to the holding in question and being a licencee as found by the appellate Court, he has the right to occupy the same as occupation of the Appellant is permissible by virtue of licence issued in his favour. He has, therefore, every right to evict any encroacher thereto. He has a limited right to evict any encroacher from the suit premises so long the period of licencee has not expired or the same has not been determined by the competent authority for any reason whatsoever. 9. This is exactly what has happened in the case at hand. The Appellant, being a licencee of the holding in question, instituted a suit under Section 5 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act') against the Defendants seeking their eviction claiming them to be trespasser. The suit itself is maintainable and in the light of the judicial authorities forenoted, he has right to institute a case for eviction of any encroacher and is entitled to get a decree for eviction of the Respondents who have trespassed into the holding in question. 10. That being so, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case warranting interference with the appellate judgment and decree. 10. That being so, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case warranting interference with the appellate judgment and decree. Accordingly the appellate judgment and decree dated 7.4.98 passed by the learned District Judge, Kokrajhar in Title Appeal No. 6 of 1995 is hereby set aside and quashed and the judgment and decree dated 23.11.95 rendered by learned Munsiff No. 1, Kokrajhar in Title Suit No. 52 of 1986 is hereby restored and affirmed. 11. In the result this appeal succeeds and stands allowed. No costs. Appeal allowed