MANJINDER SINGH Vs. BHUPINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision is against the dismissal of the petition for injunction by the Courts below sought at the instance of the plaintiff who claimed that he was in continuous possession pursuant to lease granted for a period of 15 years for establishing a brick kiln. Admittedly, the lease period has expired on 30.3.2012.

(2.) Learned counsel refers me to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Walter Louis Franklin (dead) through L.Rs Vs. George Singh( dead) through L.Rs, 1997 3 SCC 503 to contend that a person in possession of immovable property is entitled to injunction even against the true owner. The Court was considering the case of a tenant who had taken possession of property as a lessee in respect of a building to which a Rent Control Legislation was applicable and as a tenant he was entitled to be protected. The situation does not obtain in this case. Learned counsel also refers to a judgment in Ram Gowda Vs. Varadappa Naidhu, 2004 1 SCC 769 The Court was considering the case of the plaintiff who was in settled possession and a person claiming to be true owner was seeking to disturb his possession. The Court held that where the issue of nature of possession was required to be adjudicated, a person in settled possession could not be thrown out of the Court even if he were a trespasser, the Court would come to his aid to protect his possession till the respective rights of parties and decided. In this case the character of possession is that of a tenant at sufferance and I have not been shown to the benefit of specific legislation granting him the statutory protection against dispossession beyond the period of lease. There cannot be therefore an injunction and the injunction has been rightly rejected by the two Courts below.

(3.) The order is maintained and the revision is dismissed.