The appellant had filed Suit seeking declaration to the effect that he is holding leasehold rights in the aforesaid shop and, therefore, he is a protected tenant. He had also claimed relief of permanent injunction seeking restraint against the defendant(s)(respondent(s) herein) from dispossessing the appellant(s) from the shop (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit premises’).-
Trail court dismissed the suit – categorically recording a finding that the appellant(s) was only a licensee and not a lessee. -However, it was also found as a fact that the appellant(s) was in settled possession of the suit premises. The injunction was refused only on the ground that the appellant(s) had not filed any site plan. – High court confirmed the same –
Apex cour held that even as a licensee the appellant could not have been dispossessed without the process of law. This proposition has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent(s). Accordingly, these appeals are partly allowed holding that the appellant(s) is a licensee, decree of injunction is passed in favour of the appellant to the extent that the appellant shall not be dispossessed without the process of law meaning thereby the respondent(s) shall be permitted to recourse of legal proceedings in this behalf.