JUDGMENT : HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J. 1. Present appeals are filed by the appellant under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 30.9.2002 passed by the learned City Civil Judge, Court No.11, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court") whereby, the trial Court has partly allowed Civil Suit No.5747 of 1987 and Civil Suit No. 5919 of 1995 and directed that the original defendant was not entitled to transfer licence in respect of the suit shop bearing No.689 in the name of original plaintiff and the interim order passed below the notice of motion - Exh.5/6 was made absolute. 2. The facts giving rise to present appeals are that present opponent-original plaintiff (deceased) has filed two suits before the Civil Court being Civil Suit No.5747 of 1987 and Civil suit No. 5919 of 1995 for his right, title and possession of the same property. The original plaintiff was a licensee of the suit property being a piece of land admeasuring 10 feet x 10 feet, which was allotted to him by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, since the corporation had decided to give temporary relief to such displaced person. 2.1 The Civil Suit No. 5747 of 1987 came to be filed for declaration that the defendant-corporation's act to transfer the suit property is illegal, ultravires, unconstitutional etc. and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from transferring the licence in question in favour of defendant No.2. 2.2 The Civil Suit No. 5919 of 1995 came to be preferred for getting peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property from the original defendant Kapuraji Kesaji, who was found in possession, at the time of filing the suit. 2.3 In view of the fact that Kapurji Keshaji (deceased) had applied to the Municipal Corporation for transferring the licence with the regard to shop in question, the original plaintiff had submitted a suit objecting such transfer. 2.4 In Civil Suit No. 5747/87, vide notice of motion Exhibit-5/6, the original plaintiff had prayed for prohibitory order against the defendant corporation from transferring the licence in question in favour of defendant No. 2 and such relief was confirmed. However, defendant No. 2 had also preferred notice of motion Exhibit-28/29, to safeguard possession of the cabin in question. 2.4 In Civil Suit No. 5747/87, vide notice of motion Exhibit-5/6, the original plaintiff had prayed for prohibitory order against the defendant corporation from transferring the licence in question in favour of defendant No. 2 and such relief was confirmed. However, defendant No. 2 had also preferred notice of motion Exhibit-28/29, to safeguard possession of the cabin in question. 2.5 In view of the above facts and after hearing both the sides and evaluating the evidence placed on record, the trial Court allowed both the Civil Suit being Civil Suit No.5747 of 1987 and Civil Suit No. 5919 of 1995 and directed that the original defendant-AMC is not entitled to transfer the licence in respect of shop bearing No.689 in the name of original defendant No.2. 2.6 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court, the appellant has preferred present appeals. 3. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been in possession of the premises in question from the institution of suit and is currently occupying the suit shop. It is further submitted that the said shop was initially part of a partnership firm, which was dissolved in 1976, and since then, the appellant has been in possession of Shop No. 689. The appellant is also stated to be carrying on business from the said shop. 4.1 In light of the above submissions, learned counsel for the appellant prays that the present appeals be allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court is just, proper, and in accordance with law, as well as consistent with settled legal principles. It is submitted that, after carefully examining the record and evaluating the evidence presented, the Trial Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and award. 6. Having considered the rival submissions, I have examined the relevant materials and documents on record. I have also perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, along with the entire record and proceedings. 7. It appears that the trial Court has after close scrutiny of the evidence placed on record and after hearing both the sides at Exh. I have also perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, along with the entire record and proceedings. 7. It appears that the trial Court has after close scrutiny of the evidence placed on record and after hearing both the sides at Exh. 18 framed four issues in Civil Suit No.5747 of 1987 which read as under:- (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is a licensee of the defendant Corporation in respect of the suit premises? (2) Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff had no rights in respect of the suit premises in view of the transfer effected by the plaintiff in favour of Kantibhai Ranchhodbhai? 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration and injunction as prayed for? 4) What order? 8. In Civil Suit No. 5919 of 1995, the trial Court has framed six issues which read as under:- (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is licensee of the Ahmadabad Municipal Corporation in respect of the suit premises ? (2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant's possession is illegal, unlawful and without any right and as such, he is a trespasser, as alleged ? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit property and damage, as prayed for? (4) Whether the defendant proves that he is in possession of the suit premises without any hindrance whatsoever? (5) Whether the suit is within the period of limitation? (6) What order and decree ? 9. After framing the issues, the trial Court addressed them in accordance with the law. Subsequently, the Court provided a detailed discussion in paragraph No. 12 which is just and proper and in accordance with law. Upon considering the relevant aspects and evaluating the evidence on record and after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties, the trial Court passed the impugned judgment and order. In my view, the said judgment is just and proper, and there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. 10. It also appears that the stay was granted by the Coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 3.3.2006 on condition that the appellant shall pay regular license fee as well as municipal tax to the corporation and till date, the appellant is enjoying the said interim relief granted in his favour. 11. 10. It also appears that the stay was granted by the Coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 3.3.2006 on condition that the appellant shall pay regular license fee as well as municipal tax to the corporation and till date, the appellant is enjoying the said interim relief granted in his favour. 11. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer the deposition of the appellant before the trial Court, which reads as under:- "Examination-in-Chief by Ld. Adv. Mr. M.I. Pathan for the Defendant no.2: Date: 16/07/2002 1. I do the trade of grains in the cabins of the Municipal Corporation situated outside Delhi Darwaja for 25 years. Presently, there is no partner in my business. Mr. Kantilal Ranchhodbhai was my partner when I started the business. Our partnership was oral. One out of the conditions in our partnership, was such that one can be free from the partnership whenever he wishes so. Regarding another condition, I have to state that our partnership firm ceased on the demise of Mr. Kantilal. Now I state that if a partner dies, he shall be considered to be relieved from partnership. In this partnership, the shop was provided of Kantilal Ranchchodbhai and the capital was invested by me. In our partnership, Mr. Kantilal had a share in profit, and had no share in loss. I had to run the business on the shop. We had begun such partnership in the year 1974. Our said partnership ceased in the year 1975, at that time, we distributed the share of profit-loss. Deed of our partnership has been produced vide Exhibit-71. The original copy of this partnership deed has been produced by me before the Small Cause Court in the matter of P.S.R.P Case No: 61/88. After cessation of our partnership firm, I carry the business on that shop. I had made an application in the Municipal Corporation for transfer of License of that shop. Such an application was done by me in the time frame of 1978 to 1980. I pay such license fee after cessation of our partnership firm and on making such an application for license transfer. Officials of the Municipal Corporation come to my shop to collect the license fee. They issued me the receipt of paying such license fee. 2. No any notice was issued to me by the Municipal Corporation after I made an application for transfer of license. Officials of the Municipal Corporation come to my shop to collect the license fee. They issued me the receipt of paying such license fee. 2. No any notice was issued to me by the Municipal Corporation after I made an application for transfer of license. Such a notice has not been issued to me by the Municipal Corporation since 1975 until I filed such a suit. 3. I do not know Sachumal Pratapmal. He has never visited my shop. He had not issued any notice to me in the year 1975, when I made an application for name transfer. I even do not know Mr. Safarmal. I did not have any transaction with Safarmal neither for business nor any other purpose. Apart from this suit, there have been another suits filed for the disputed place, which is P.S.R.B 61/88 filed in the Small Cause Court. This case came to be concluded in my favour. It was filed by Satumal. Thereafter, no any summons have been served to me either from the High Court or from any other court. Cross-examination by Ld. Adv. Mr. Y.K. Chhaya for the Defendant No.1: 4. It is true that the disputed place of Cabin is owned by the Municipal Corporation. The cabin is also owned by the Municipal Corporation. It is true that license of that shop is in the name of plaintiff even till date. It is true that receipt of the license fee paid by me is issued in the name of the plaintiff even today. Cross-examination by Ld. Adv. Mr. J.T. Khabrani for the Plainti 5. Mr. Dahyabhai Nai is to be examined as my witness whose father’s name is not known to me. He lives at the Ramapir Na Tekra in Vadaj area. He was doing business previously in the disputed shop. He was doing the business as a barber in that shop before 1974. he was carrying the business since almost six years. (6) I do not know as to when the disputed cabin was constructed. I also do not as to know when it was made, by whom it was made and who placed it. It is true that aforesaid cabin is situated on the plot of municipal corporation. It is true that the municipality plot is on rent in the name of Sachumal. I also do not as to know when it was made, by whom it was made and who placed it. It is true that aforesaid cabin is situated on the plot of municipal corporation. It is true that the municipality plot is on rent in the name of Sachumal. I do not know that municipal corporation allotted this plot to Sachumal in the year 1955. I do not know that Sachumal built a cabin from his own money on such plot and did business over there. There are fifteen to sixteen cabins situated nearby the disputed cabin. All the cabins situated over there are on the municipality land. I have not inquired as to whether Sachumal was doing business from this cabin. (7) I do not know that Sachumal carried out Spices business from the year 1950 till 1965 in this disputed cabin. I arrived in this cabin in 1974 to do business and there is no information regarding ownership of this cabin, license etc prior to the year 1974. (8) When I entered into partnership with Kantilal at that time he was running a barber shop in this shop. I do not know since how many years he was doing this business. I also do not know as to in what capacity was he operating the shop. At present Kantilal is dead. He passed away 20 years ago. It is true that I do not have any other written evidence to show that I and Kantibhai had a partnership. We did not maintain books of accounts of partnership. Our partnership was not registered under the Ghumastadhara of municipal corporation. It is not true that I have fabricated the weed of partnership with Kanitbhai. Before entering into partnership with Kantilal, I did not inquire as to in what capacity does he remains present and carries out business in the disputed cabin. I do not know Sachumal at all. It is true that the suit of P.S.R.P. 61/88 is filed by Sachumal against Safarmal Mangalmal and me. I do not remember as to why was the suit filed against Safarmal. I do not know as to in what capacity I was adjoined in that suit. It is not true that Safarmal was licensee of Sachumal and therefore he had filed such a suit. Sachumal filed an appeal against disposal of the said suit that why was he not informed about it. I do not know as to in what capacity I was adjoined in that suit. It is not true that Safarmal was licensee of Sachumal and therefore he had filed such a suit. Sachumal filed an appeal against disposal of the said suit that why was he not informed about it. No notice was issued to me by the High Court in that case. Adjourned on oral request of advocate for the defendant. Dt. 16/7/02 Before me Sd/- Illegible (S. G. Shah) City Civil Judge no. Illegible Ahmedabad. Cross Examination on behalf of plaintiff by Advocate Mr. J. T. Khabrani (9) I stated that I understood the books of account of partnership with Kantilal, but I do not have any books of account of that partnership with me. It is true that license is to be obtained to sell food-grains. I have obtained such a license in my name only and not in the name of the partnership. It is not true that I never had a partnership with Kantilal. It is not true that I have fabricated partnership document to take away the disputed property. It is not true that I am falsely stating that Dahyabhai Nai worked in the disputed cabin for six years. It is not true that the license of the disputed cabin is non-transferable. I had inquired as to whether such a license can be transferred or not. It is true that Sachumal was a refugee, therefore, municipality had allotted this land. It is true that I am not a refugee. I do not know as to whether the disputed cabin is fixed in the land or not. When the partnership with Kantilal was ended, at that time, the value of a disputed cabin was considered as four to five thousand rupees. There are fifteen sixteen other cabins around the disputed cabin. Monthly rent of approximately five hundred rupees can be obtained of such cabins. Witness voluntarily states that earlier Rs. 100 were obtained, today Rs. 500 are obtained. Rent of the cabin was only Rs. 75/- in the year 1975. It is not true that the rent of such cabin was Rs. 300/- in the year 1987. The rent of such a cabin has never been Rs. 100 to Rs. 150/-. It is not true that Sachumal had served a notice to me before filing the suit in small cause court. 75/- in the year 1975. It is not true that the rent of such cabin was Rs. 300/- in the year 1987. The rent of such a cabin has never been Rs. 100 to Rs. 150/-. It is not true that Sachumal had served a notice to me before filing the suit in small cause court. It is not true that I have made up a false story of partnership with Kantilal to wrongly obtain the possession of a disputed cabin. It is true that application was filed in the corporation in the year 1987 to transfer the cabin in my name. It is true that such an application of mine is not approved till date. It is not true that Sachumal came to my cabin a week before I made such an application. It is not true that he told me that it is his cabin and levelled allegation as to how I trespassed there. Witness per se states that I do not know Sachumal. (10) I know Safarmal. It is not true that Sachumal had raised objection in the year 1987 regarding my possession of a disputed cabin. I do not even know as to where Sachumal used to reside." 12. Upon consideration of the evidence and perusal of the record, it is evident that the present appellant, though impleaded later on as a defendant in the proceedings before the trial Court, failed to file a written statement. Despite having been afforded an opportunity, the appellant chose not to submit any written statement. It is pertinent to note that only the Municipal Corporation filed its written statement in the matter. 13. After going through the evidence and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the evidence recorded by the trial Court, I am of the opinion that present appeals do not deserve to be entertained and the same is required to be dismissed. The trial Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order. The impugned order passed by the trial Court is just and proper and there is not need to disturb the same. 14. For the foregoing, both these appeals are hereby dismissed. Interim relief grated earlier by this Court stands vacated forthwith. No order as to cost. Record and proceeding, if received, be sent back to the concerned trial Court. 15. At this stage, Mr. 14. For the foregoing, both these appeals are hereby dismissed. Interim relief grated earlier by this Court stands vacated forthwith. No order as to cost. Record and proceeding, if received, be sent back to the concerned trial Court. 15. At this stage, Mr. Patel, learned counsel for the appellant, has sought time to vacate the suit premises, i.e., Shop No. 689. On instructions, he submits that the possession of the said premises shall be handed over on or before 31st December 2025. 16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the request made by Mr. Patel, learned counsel for the appellant, is accepted. Accordingly, the appellant is permitted to hand over peaceful possession of the suit shop, bearing No. 689, on or before 31st December 2025. Connected Civil Application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.