Judgment :- 1. The appellant herein filed a suit as plaintiff in O.S.No.176 of 2002, on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Kancheepuram, seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/respondent herein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 2. It was the case of the appellant before the trial Court that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property that is located in the Road Margin Poromboke to the West of Kamatchi Amman Koil Post Office bearing Door No.1. The said road margin is quite unobjectionable and does not affect the traffic and further, it was claimed that the site is far away from the road. The respondent-the Commissioner, Kanchipuram Municipality, Kanchipuram, issued a notice dated Nil under Section 182(1) of the District Municipality Act. On receipt of the said notice, when the suit was filed in O.S.No.804 of 1987, the same was decreed by granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff. But, the relief with regard to declaratory portion was refused and for which, an appeal was filed in A.S.No.36 of 1995, which was allowed declaring that the plaintiff is the lessee under the defendant. When no further appeal was filed by the defendant as against any of the order passed by the trial Court as well as first appellate Court, the defendant cannot forcibly evict the plaintiff without following due process of law. It is also further submitted that the defendant has been receiving the lease amount. Besides, the plaintiff has been paying the electricity charges to the electricity department only on the permission granted by the defendant corporation. Under these circumstances, the defendant has no right to dispose of the plaintiff. 3. Opposing the same, the defendant filed a detailed written statement contending that the plaintiff is neither a lessee nor a licencee of the suit property. Though the plaintiff has obtained a decree, it is also admitted case that there is no bilateral agreement to allow the plaintiff to carry on any business in the suit property. Since the plaintiff has not become lawful licencee and his status is only a rank trespasser, the suit for permanent injunction against the defendant shall not be granted. Though the plaintiff has obtained a decree, it is also admitted case that there is no bilateral agreement to allow the plaintiff to carry on any business in the suit property. Since the plaintiff has not become lawful licencee and his status is only a rank trespasser, the suit for permanent injunction against the defendant shall not be granted. On that basis, the trial Court, finally, dismissed the suit, with an observation that the plaintiff has already put up a tea shop in the objectionable peramboke area and further held that unless, the defendant takes any lawful course to evict the plaintiff, forcible eviction should not be followed. Aggrieved by the same, when an appeal was filed before the first appellate Court in A.S.No.23 of 2005, the same was dismissed, even without giving the benefit of observation given by the trial Court. As against, the present second appeal is filed. 4. Though notices were issued, no one appeared for the respondent/defendant. 5. While challenging the correctness of the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the plaintiff has already filed a suit on the file of the Additional District Muncif, Kancheepuram, in O.S.No.804 of 1987, and obtained a decree and one another judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.36 of 1995 declaring that the plaintiff is the lessee under the defendant, the defendant municipality, without taking proper course to evict the plaintiff, cannot make any unlawful attempt to dislodge the plaintiff's tea shop from the suit property. 6. Adding further, it was submitted that, only on the permission granted by the municipality, the plaintiff has applied for getting electricity service connection to the tea shop. In addition to that, the plaintiff has been paying the rent towards the shop in question. This aspect having been overlooked by the first appellate Court, ought not to have gone to the extent of cancelling the observation made by the learned trial Court to the defendant not to evict the plaintiff without following the due process of law. Therefore, assailing the decree and judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court, she prayed for interfering with the same. 7. Therefore, assailing the decree and judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court, she prayed for interfering with the same. 7. Though the argument was advanced assailing the reasoning given by the learned first appellate Court, that the learned appellate Court has completely overlooked the vital aspect that the defendant has been receiving the monthly rent from the plaintiff, the other findings recorded by the learned first appellate Court that, at no point of time, the plaintiff has produced any material evidence to show that he was permitted by the defendant to put up the shop in the disputed place. Furthermore, no other clinching document was produced before the Courts below to show that the defendant has entered into any lawful lease agreement or he was issued with any license to run the shop in question. Therefore, the learned first appellate Court, by relying upon the copy of the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Muncif, Kancheepuram, in O.S.No.804 of 1987, has held against the plaintiff that the judgment has not supported the case of the plaintiff for the reason that para 8 of the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Muncif in O.S.No.804 of 1987 has also found that the plaintiff has not produced any document or any acceptable evidence to drive his point that the defendant has issued any license to run the shop in question. 8. In that view of the matter, when the Courts below held that the plaintiff is a rank trespasser, such a finding cannot be ordinarily interfered with by this Court. Thus, answering the substantial question of law against the appellant by holding that both the Courts below have rightly recorded a finding that the plaintiff/appellant is an "unauthorised occupant" of the suit property, this Court finds no error in the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram, in A.S.No.23 of 2005, dated 30.06.2006, is restored. No Costs.