The protection against wrongful dispossession and the requirement for governmental authorities to act strictly within the framework of recognized rules and principles.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the plaintiff and is directed against the order dt 31-8-1985 on I. A. I. on O. S. No. 2724 of 1985 on the file of the XI Addl Civil Judge, Bangalore City, declining an interlocutory injunction restraining dispossession.

( 2 ) M/s. Patil Exhibitors (Pvt.) Ltd. , -appellant, was lessee of the Municipal Corporation of Bangalore - respondent respecting the plaint schedule property, viz. , a Cinema-house located in the public utility building on the M. G. Road, Bangalore, under a deed of lease dt. 31-10-1981. The term of the lease came to an end, by efflux of time, on the expiry of 31-8-1985. Even before the expiry of the term under the lease, appellant brought the present suit for specific enforcement of an alleged agreement to renew the lease said to be contained in Cl. 27 of the said deed dt. 31-10-1981. In the suit, appellant filed I. A. I. under 0. 39 Rr. 1 and 2 CPC for an interlocutory possessory remedy of a temporary injunction restraining respondent-lessor from interfering with the plaintiffs possession of the cinema-house.

( 3 ) THE appeal is in the list of admission cases for the day. Sri R. V. Vasantha Kumar, learned Counsel took notice for the respondent and has entered appearance. The appeal is admitted. With the consent of the learned Counsel on both sides the appeal is taken up for final hearing, heard and disposed of by this judgment.

( 4 ) SRI H. B. Datar, for appellant confined his argument to a short point. He submitted that whatever might be the merits of the appellant's case that the said Cl. 27 entitled it to a renewal of the lease for a further term of five years the interlocutory prayer admits of being understood as one for an injunction restraining the lessor from resorting to forcible dispossession till possession is taken in accordance with or in a manner known to or recognised by law. He submitted that on the admitted facts and even on the basis of the case of the lessor that appellant had continued in possession after the expiry of the lease, appellant could not be forcibly dispossessed. He submitted that, on the midnight of 31st of Aug. 1985, the authorities of the respondent along with posse of police-men came to the premises and demanded surrender of possession and purported to interfere with appellant's possession. He submitted that in the circumstances, respondent requires to be restrained from resorting to extra-legal and illegal procedure for working out its rights.

( 5 ) SRI R. V. Vasantha Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-lessor contended that in the Court-below the interlocutory prayer rested entirely on the appellant's alleged entitlement to a renewal of the lease and that the said Cl. 7 merely amounted to an agreement to agree and no contract and that consistently with the prima facie finding of the Court-below on the construction of that clause in the lease-deed no interlocutory relief was permissible. He urged that the present argument of the appellant's learned counsel proceeds and draws on an altogether new case. Sri Vasantha Kumar said that the term of the lease had spent itself out and the appellant had a statutory duty under S. 108 of the T. P. Act to yield-up and to surrender vacant possession to the lessor. If a lessee fails to do so and continues in possession against the wishes of the landlord, his continuance in possession, contends counsel, cannot be called lawful possession. If the possession of the plaintiff is not lawful, plaintiff, says counsel, cannot sustain a claim for any possessory remedy against the true owner, though plaintiff's possession, in itself, and without more, can justify a possessory remedy against the whole world except the true owner.

( 6 ) ON the contentions urged, the points that fall for consideration in the appeal are, whether a lessee, who after the expiry or termination of the lease does not yield-up possession but sticks on to possession against the wishes of landlord, is entitled to an injunction