JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—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 of Uttar 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. 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. “oknh }kjk ;g dFku fd;k x;k fd fnukad 15&9&1997 dks 'kke djhc 4-30 cts izfrokfn x.k muds dk;e eqdkeku fjLrsnkjku fgrS"khx.k o okfjlku ,d jk; gksdj vijkf/kd izofRr ds yksxksa ds lkFk oknh ds fdjk;s nkjh okyh nqdku gLc tSy ij uktk;t vlygksa o ykBh MaMksa ls ySl gksdj oknh ls tcfj;k nqdku [kkyh djkus fd fu;r oknh dks tku eky dk [krjk iSnk djds ,d ckjxh geykoj gq, gSaA ijUrq blh lanHkZ esa ;g Hkh dFku fd;k x;k fd izfroknh x.k ukdke;kc jgsaA rFkk nqdku ij tcjnLrh dCtk djus dh /kedh nsrs gq, pys x;sA tcfd blh lanHkZ esa izR;kFkhZx.k us vius izfrokn i= esa ;g Li"V dFku fd;k gS fd os fcuk fdlh fof/kd zizfdz;k ds oknh ls fookfnr nqdku fjDr ugha djk;saxsA ;fn izfroknh x.k }kjk tcjnLrh nqdku fjDr djkus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k rFkk oknh dks blls tku eky dk [krjk mRiUu gqvk rks blds lanHkZ esa ek= Fkkus esa fjiksVZ djkus dk iz;kl gh vko’;d ugha gS oju bl lanHkZ esa Fkkus esa fjiksVZ djk;k tkuk vko’;d FkkA ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa ;g fdlh Hkh izdkj ls Lohdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd izkR;kFkhZx.k us oknh dks fookfnr nqdku ls csn[ky djus dk iz;kl fd;kA rnkuqlkj fo}ku ijh{k.k U;k;ky; us bl okn fcUnq dk fuLrkj.k vihydrkZ ds fo:) djds U;k;ksfpr vkns’k ikfjr fd;k gSA fo}ku ijh{k.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fd, x;s vkns’k esa dksbZ oSk/kkfud rFkk rF; laca/kh =qVh ugha izrhr gksrh gSA fo}ku ijh{k.k U;k;ky; us vihy drkZ dks fdlh Hkh vuqrks"k dk vf/kdkjh Lohdkj ugha fd;kA fo}ku ijh{k.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fd;s x;s iz’u xr fu.kZ; rFkk vKkfIr esa ,slh dksbZ oS/kkfud rFkk rF; laca/kh =qVh ugha izrhr gks jgh gSA ftlls fd iz’uxr vKfIr rFkk fu.kZ; esa bl U;k;ky; }kjk dksbZ gLr{ski fd;s tkus dh vko’;drk gksA rnkuqlkj vihydrkZ vcjkj [kku }kjk izLrqr vihy lO;; fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vkns’k vihydrkZ vcjkj [kku }kjk izLrqr vihy lO;; fujLr dh tkrh gS A (nsosUnz dqekj feJk) vij ftyk ,oa l=U;k;k/kh’k U;k;d{k la&7 dkuiqj uxj A^^ fnukad&1&10&2005 4. A perusal of the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2005 passed by the First Appellate Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant shows that the landlord had taken stand that since the appellant has come into possession he will not evict him except in accordance with law and both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of fact that the appellant is a trespasser and not the tenant. 5. Since both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of facts on the basis of oral and documentary evidence against the appellant holding him to be a trespasser and not the tenant of the property in dispute, hence the landlord that the appellant can evict him from shop in question after the case has been decided against trespasser which would be in accordance with law. The action of the landlord in these circumstances, cannot be said to be contrary to law cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in the aforesaid case of Ram Rattan (supra). 6. For all the reasons stated above, the appeal is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ————