1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.204 OF 2009 The Chief Officer, Panchgani Hill Station Municipal Council ..Appellant versus Shafi Abdul Bagwan ..Respondent Mr.Siddharth Karpe i/b. Y.K.S.Legal for the appellant None for the respondent CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 13th JULY, 2009. P.C: 1. The respondent instituted the suit in the Court of the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wai, being Regular Civil Suit NO.121 of 1997 for seeking protection in respect of the gala which the respondent is occupying for a substantially long time. The 2nd Joint Civil Judge, before whom the suit was tried, dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 14.2.2008, against which an appeal came to be filed by the respondent in the 2 District Court at Satara being Regular Civil Appeal No.120 of 2008. The learned District Judge,II, Satara by judgment and decree dated 25.11.2008 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.2.2008 and directed the corporation to follow due process for evicting the respondent from the suit property. 2. I have heard learned Advocate appearing for the appellants. A reading of the entire record goes to show that at one stage the appellants wanted to grant extension of term to respondent to continue in the premises. However because that proposal was not approved by the State Government, the said desire could not be fulfilled. A reading of the entire record goes to show that the respondent is occupying the premises and his initial entry was on the basis of the license granted to him and he has been occupying the premises for a long time i.e. for last more than 15 to 20 years, if this be so, if the appellants want to remove the respondent from the suit premises, undoubtedly due 3 procedure will have to be followed, and that is what has been ordered by the learned District Judge, Satara. Hence there is no need to interfere in the judgment delivered by the learned District Judge. In view of the above, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Hence the Order. ORDER i. Appeal is dismissed. ii.It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any views on merits of the matter, namely whether the respondent is entitled to occupy the premises or otherwise. iii.This court has also not expressed any views as to what procedure should be treated as due procedure for eviction of the respondent. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)