A person in settled and long possession cannot be thrown out except by due process of law.

( 1 ) SURINDER Kumar respondent herein filed a suit in the Court of Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi against the petitioners herein for permanent injunction restraining them from dispossessing the respondent- plaintiff from the premises bearing no. E-25 N. D. S. E. Part-1, New Delhi. Alongwith this suit, the respondent plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for an interim order against dispossession from the said premises.

( 2 ) THE trial court by its order dated 2nd February 1987 granted a temporary injunction restraining the petitioners herein from dispossessing the respondent plaintiff from the said premises except by due process of law. Against this order, the petitioners herein filed an appeal in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Delhi which appeal was also dismissed and the interim order granted by the trial court was confirmed. This revision petition is directed against the order of the lower appellate court dated 16th February 1987.

( 3 ) A preliminary objection was taken by the respondent regarding the maintainability of the revision on the ground that since the petitioners had not filed the certified copy of the trial court order nor an application for condonation of delay or exemption from filing the certified copy and, therefore, the petition was beyond time.

( 4 ) I do not propose to decide the present case on the preliminary objection because the same is of a very technical nature and the defect can be over-come by making an oral prayer for condonation of delay and exemption from filing the certified copy.

( 5 ) ON merits, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent had failed to make out a prima-facie case and, therefore, the two courts below had erred in granting a temporary injunction against the petitioners Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the case of the respondent-plaintiff in the suit is that he was inducted as a tenant by one Shri Sher Singh and he had not placed on record any document to show that he was a lawful tenant of Shri Sher Singh. Learned counsel submitted that for granting an interim injunction the trial court has not only to see the balance of convenience and the irreparable loss and injury but has also to see whether a prima-facie case is made out. In support of this proposition he REFERRED TO to Jaswant Rai v. Smt. Dhanwanti Devi and Another, AIR 1974 Punjab and Haryana 197, Bhag Surana v. Bal Krishan, 1983 R. L. R. 207 and Kanshi Ram v. Bansi Lal. Alr 1977 Himachal Pradesh 61 and submitted that from the documents filed by the respondent-plaintiff before the trial court he had not made out any triable case. Learned counsel submitted that the premises were let out to M/s Khanijau Industries (Engg) Pvt. Ltd. and the respondent was permitted to use the premises in question in his capacity as a Technical Director of M/s Khanijau Industries (Engg) Pvt. Ltd. He REFERRED TO to a resolution passed by the company to that effect which was also counter-signed by the respondent himself. Learned counsel stated that the respondent had now ceased to be the director of the said company and, therefore, it was impreative that the vacated the Premises. Learned counsel stated that since the respondent- plaintiff was only a licencee of the company he could be thrown out from he said premises without going to a court of law. In support of this contention, he REFERRED TO to a full Bench judgment of this Court in Chandu Lal v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, AIR 1978 (Delhi) 174.

( 6 ) ON the other hand, it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent was inducted by Shri Sher Singh one month before the agreement for lease was signed with the present petitioners. He submitted that the company had in its income-tax return claimed deductions for payment of rent made in respect of these premises as rent paid to the director. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent had been in p