MOOLCHAND Vs. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, BEENAGANJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a batch of five second Appeals by plaintiffs under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. All these appellants have claimed themselves to be tenants of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Beenaganj, the respondent. They have a grievance that the respondent -committee has attempted to evict them from the shops occupied by them since 1981 without due process of law. All of them had claimed permanent injunction against the respondent -Samiti. On the other hand, respondent -committee claimed that it has tried to better raise its financial condition. Appellants are licensees for a limited period. State of Madhya Pradesh has sanctioned the amount for construction of shops by the committee and thus the appellants are liable to be evicted. Bar to civil suit under Section 66 of the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972, which hereinafter be called as "Adhiniyam", was also claimed with bar or civil suit in absence of statutory notice under section 67 of the said Adhiniyam.

(2.) BOTH the courts below agreed with the respondent and held that civil suit is barred under Section 66 of the Adhiniyam as well as under Section 67 of the said Act as no statutory notice was given by the appellants. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the record and the judgments of both the courts below. Section 66 and Section 67 of the Adhiniyam read as follows :

(3.) IT is well settled that nobody can be dispossessed except by recourse to law. A person in settled possession can claim injunction even against a true owner. See, Puranslngh v. State of Punjab ( : AIR 1975 SC 1674), Krishna Ram Mahale vs. Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao ( : AIR 1989 SC 2097), M. Kallappa Setty v. M.V. Lakshminrayana Rao ( : AIR 1972 SC 2299). Geeta Bal v. Radhakrlshna (1997 RN 105) and Gajendra Singh v. Maan Singh : 2000 (1) MPJR 465. In the last case Division Bench of this High Court also has very deeply considered all the leading judgments on the subject and have held that a person in settled possession cannot be summarily evicted even by a true owner. Of course, possession of a tenant or a licensee for a long period is settled possession within the meaning of Munshiram v. Delhi Administration (AIR 1968 SC 702). Of course, in such facts it cannot be said that the respondent had acted in good faith or intended to act under the Adhiniyam or Rules or Bye -laws framed thereunder. As such, obviously bar to civil suit under section 66 of the Adhiniyam was not applicable against any action by the tenants for permanent injunction against their summary eviction by the landlord -committee.