Court case(1989) 4 SCC 131

The respondent ran a restaurant in Bombay under an agreement with the appellant that the courts treated as a licence to conduct the business. When differences arose over the terms, the appellant did not go to court: he forcibly took over the premises and the business and put her out. She sued for restoration of possession.

The Supreme Court restored possession to the respondent. It is settled law in this country that where a person is in settled possession of property, even on the assumption that he has no right to remain there, he cannot be dispossessed by the owner except by recourse to law. A licensee whose licence has been terminated is in this position: the licensor's remedy is a suit, not force. Having dispossessed her unlawfully, the appellant was bound to hand the premises back whatever the merits of the dispute about the agreement.