Judgment :- The unsuccessful appellant before this Court is the plaintiff in O.S.No.871 of 1990. 2. The appellant/plaintiff filed the said suit for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. The case of the appellant/plaintiff is that initially he was a permissive occupant under the first defendant. He was enjoying the suit property by running a petty shop. Further, he would state that for running the said shop, he obtained necessary permission from the authority concerned. He would state that he also paid the relevant tax to the town panchayat authorities. 3. For running the said petty shop in the premises, he also obtained electricity connection in his favour. He paid the electricity charges regularly. In those circumstances, he has stated that all of a-sudden without issuing any notice for eviction, the defendants 2 and 3 along with their supporters forcibly attempted to evict the appellant/plaintiff from the premises. 4. It is stated that the second and third defendants are very influenced persons. If their attempt would not have been prevented by the order of this Court, the defendants would have evicted him from the premises forcibly. 5. Further, the case of the appellant/plaintiff is that he was running the said shop from 1964 onwards. Further, the case of the appellant/plaintiff is that recognizing the possession over the suit property by the appellant/plaintiff, he was permitted to pay necessary tax to the local authorities. Therefore, the appellant/plaintiff would claim himself that he is a lessee. 6. Emphasizing the above, he also produced Exs.A-1 to A-10 which are the receipts and licences. Exs.A-11 to A-17 are the receipts for the payment of electricity charges by the appellant/plaintiff to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Exs.A-18 to A-20 are licences and receipts. Ex.A-21 is the receipt for payment of tax to the town panchayat. 7. The case of the defendants is that the appellant was a trespasser. No permission was given to the appellant/plaintiff to occupy the suit premises either by the first defendant or the defendants 2 and 3. 8. It is pointed out that even though the said piece of land was initially under the control of town panchayat administration, during the year 1984 the entire area including the suit premises was handed over to the temple authorities, i.e. defendants 2 and 3, thereby the suit property was brought under the control of the defendants 2 and 3. 8. It is pointed out that even though the said piece of land was initially under the control of town panchayat administration, during the year 1984 the entire area including the suit premises was handed over to the temple authorities, i.e. defendants 2 and 3, thereby the suit property was brought under the control of the defendants 2 and 3. Moreover, the said suit-property is situated in front of the temple. In such circumstances, as the temple authorities felt that the said shop was a hindrance to the devotees and the public the temple authorities initiated steps to. evict the appellant/plaintiff from, the premises. 9. It is stated that before initiating eviction proceedings they have also informed the Collector and police authorities. The defendants would state that since the plaintiff encroached the suit property; he does not have any right to remain in the suit property and therefore, he is liable to be evicted. 10. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court and the same was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. Hence, the present second appeal by the plaintiff. 11. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (A) Whether the Courts below are right in dismissing the suit when the appellant was put in lawful possession of the suit property by 1st defendant which was supported by Exs.A-1 to A-18? (b) Whether the lower appellate Court is justified in concluding the appellant as a trespasser when it has accepted the possession of the appellant right from the year 1964 based on A-1 to A-18 and when it disbelieves the contention of the defendants 2 and 3 that the appellant and his family trespassed in the suit property on 30.7.1990? 12. Heard both sides. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that for establishing the possession of the appellant/plaintiff over the piece of land for over many years he has categorically produced relevant documents. In addition to that the appellant/plaintiff adduced satisfactory evidence before the Court. It is pointed out that since the appellant/Plaintiff is a permissive occupant under the defendants, his possession over the suit property should not be disturbed. 14. It is pointed out that-till the time of eviction of the appellant/plaintiff under due process of law the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to remain in the suit property as a permissive occupant. 15. It is pointed out that since the appellant/Plaintiff is a permissive occupant under the defendants, his possession over the suit property should not be disturbed. 14. It is pointed out that-till the time of eviction of the appellant/plaintiff under due process of law the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to remain in the suit property as a permissive occupant. 15. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff relied on the following decision for consideration. 16. In K.M. Mohan v. The District Collector, Vellore District and three others, (2005) 3 L.W 750 , a Division Bench of this Court held as follows: "5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the dispossession of the appellant from the building in question was illegal as the respondent-Municipality ejected him without taking recourse to a Court of law and, therefore, prayed for the restoration of the appellant's possession. Learned counsel further argued that the appellant was not put on notice and was not heard before the impugned interlocutory order was passed directing the respondent-Municipality to take possession of the hotel-building. On the other hand, it was vehemently argued by the learned Counsel for the first respondent in, W.A.No.145 of 2005 that it was not obligatory on the part of the respondent-Municipality to take recourse to law and obtain an order for possession from the Civil Court or from a statutory authority concerned before it could eject the appellant and therefore, the respondent-Municipality was justified in dispossessing the appellant from the building in question on the expiry of the lease granted in his favour. 6. We do not agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel that it was not obligatory on the part of the Municipality to take recourse to a Court of law and obtain an eviction decree before ejecting the appellant from the property. It is settled law by a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court that when a person is in settled possession of a 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 through a decree of a Court of law vide Rame gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu, (2004) 1 S.C.C. 769 : (2004) 3 L.W.143.” 17. In P.V. Vijayakumar and others v. The Commissioner, Dharmapuri Municipality and another. In P.V. Vijayakumar and others v. The Commissioner, Dharmapuri Municipality and another. (1991) 1 M.L.J.114, the learned single Judge of this Court held as follows: “It is open to the first respondent to take action against the petitioners according to law after giving notice to the petitioners, if they are encroachers. It is well settled that even assuming that a person is an encroacher, procedure known to law has to be followed before removing him from his place. It has not been done so in this case by a Public Authority.” 18. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that since the appellant has encroached the suit property, he cannot claim any kind of right over the suit property and therefore, he is liable to be evicted. 19. It is true that as stated by the appellant’s counsel the appellant/plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment over the suit property from 1964 onwards. For proving his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property, the appellant/plaintiff has produced the relevant documents. The comparing of the oral evidence adduced by the appellant/plaintiff with that of the documents produced by him would reveal that the appellant/plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property since 1964. In such circumstances, the possession of the appellant/plaintiff over the suit property could not be considered as an encroachment. However, the appellant/plaintiff cannot remain in the suit property forever without any title. In such circumstances, the relief of permanent injunction sought for by the appellant/plaintiff cannot be granted. 20. In the light of the principles laid down in the decisions cited above and also considering the status of the appellant/plaintiff, this Court is of the view that the appellant/plaintiff can be evicted from the premises only under due process of law after affording him a reasonable opportunity to defend his case, till such time, his possession cannot be disturbed. 21. With the above observation, the second appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court as the substantial questions of law are answered against the appellant. No costs. Appeal dismissed.