The main legal point established in the judgment is that even after the expiry or termination of a lease, the landlord cannot resort to forcible dispossession, and every governmental authority must justify its action as strictly authorized by law.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the plaintiff and is directed against the order dated 31-8- 1985 on I A. I. in O. S, No. 2724 of 1985 on the file of the XI Add1. Civil Judge, bangalore City, declining an interlocutory injunction restraining dis-possession.

( 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 dated 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 Clause 27 of the said deed dated 31. 10 1981. In the suit. Appellant filed I. A. I, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for an interlocutory possessory remedy of a temporary injunction restraining Respondent-lessor from interfering with the plaintiff's 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 Clause 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 dis-possession 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 mid-night of 31st of August 1985, the authorities of the respondent along with posse of policemen 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 inter-locutory prayer rested entirely on the appellant's alleged entitlement to a renewal of the lease and that the said clause 27 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 sec. 108 of the TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 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 land-lord, 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 agai