Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 978 (ALL)

Abrar Khan v. Ram Sajiwan Verma and Others

2010-03-23

RAKESH TIWARI

body2010
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. 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 versus 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. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following excerpt of the judgment dated 1.10.2005 of the first Appellate Court. @Hindi@ 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. 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, can not be said to be contrary to law cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in the aforesaid case of Ram Rattan (supra). For all the reasons stated above, the appeal is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.