ZOO AUTHORITY OF KARNATAKA Vs. ANAND MAJOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri B. N. Dayananda, learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

(2.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 24. 2. 1998 in M. A. No. 51/ 97 whereby the (appellate) Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial Court dated 5. 6. 1997 passed on I. A. I in O. S. No. 232/97 by the I Civil Judge. The appellate court further partly allowed LA. filed by the plaintiff-opposite party and the operative portion of the order reads as under:-

(3.) IT has restrained forceable dispossession. It has been contended by the petitioner's counsel that the present respondent was a licensee. His licence came to an end and therefore he had no right to remain in possession. So subsequent possession was not lawful one. Therefore, the applicant revision petitioner was entitled to take possession and to oust the plaintiff from possession. Learned counsel contended that the order granted by the trial Court, as such, is without jurisdiction and illegal. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner made a reference to a Division Bench's decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Patil exhibitors (P) Ltd. v. Corporation of the City of Bangalore.