Smt. Satyabhama Kothari W/o late Sri Pyare Lal Kothari vs Swarg Ashram Trust

By means of this first appeal, the judgment and decree of eviction as well as mesne profits dated 26.4.2010 has been assailed.

Having heard learned Counsel of both the parties, the brief background of the litigation is that one Mr. Pyre Lal Kothari was in the employment of the

respondent religious and charitable trust. He was inducted into the services in the later part of the 1970s and as an employee, he was rendered the licence to reside in two rooms, as has been enumerated in the Schedule of the property at the foot of the plaint. On account of being found not loyal to his services, Mr. Pyare Lal Kothari was terminated from the employment in 1990, but he did not vacate the possession of the said rooms. He was continuously asked to vacate the premises, but he did not pay any heed to the repeated requests of the trust authorities, while the latter also could not take any coercive measures against him on account of inaction on the part of the public charitable trust Managers, who kept on changing from time to time. So, Mr. Pyare Lal Kothari along with his family continued his possession and ultimately died on 29.11.2005.

After the death of Mr. Pyare Lal Kothari, his widow and grown up son Mr. Mahesh Kothari, daughter-in- law Smt. Abha Kothari and two grandchildren remained in occupation of such premises. Eventually, they also started running a shop in the verandah of that premises which has been shown in the property enumerated in Schedule ''B'' of the plaint. Request was consistently made to Mr. Mahesh Kothari as well as to Smt. Satyabhama Kothari (widow of Mr. Pyare Lal Kothari) to vacate, but all went in vain. Ultimately, a notice was issued on 14.10.2006, but the offending attitude of the appellants defendants became more vigorous because they started running a shop in the verandah of the disputed premises. Such verandah has been shown in the Schedule ''B'' at the foot of the plaint.

So, the trust was constrained to institute an Original Suit No. No. 46/2006 on 20.12.2006 for eviction

and recovery of mesne profit in lieu of the unauthorised possession. Such suit was decreed on 26.4.2010 by the learned Trial Judge.

I feel that the appellants are totally unauthorised occupants on the whole premises. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants that they should be treated to be in the adverse possession is wholly untenable because a licencee, howsoever long his possession might have been, can never acquire the adverse title over the premises, in question. Such is the settled position of the law.

This is entirely abuse and misuse of the process of the law to drag the litigation in the form of this first appeal, which is pending adjudication since more than last seven years.

This first appeal has no force and it is dismissed with costs throughout. The executing court will not entertain any objection, if moved by the illegal occupants of this premises who are the appellants before this Court, during the course of execution of the decree.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Let LCR be sent back.