A person in possession, especially a lessee who continues to be in possession after the expiry of the period of lease, has a better case and strong grounds to have his possession protected till the disposal of the suit, in which he seeks to get the suit properties for himself by means of the prayer for specific performance.

JUDGMENT:- The petitioner herein filed I.A. No.276 of 1971 in O.S. No.65 of 1971, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, under Order XXXIX, Rule 1, C.P.C, praying to pass an order of ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from entering upon the suit properties and disturbing his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same till the disposal of the suit. The trial court dismissed that application. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present appeal.

2. The petitioner's suit is for specific performance of a contract to execute a sale deed by the respondents in favour of the petitioner and for a permanent injunction. The suit properties consist of two items, of which the first item measures 99 cents and the second item measures 29 cents. The first respondent is the owner of these properties, and the appellant had taken a lease thereof for the purpose of running a cinema theatre. Ex.A-1 dated 5-3-1966 is the lease deed in favour of the appellant for a period of five years. Ex.A-2 dated 17-9-1968 is the agreement for sale of these items to the appellant by the first respondent. It is on the basis of Ex-A-2 that the plaintiff-petitioner has come forward with the suit for specific performance and for injunction. Since he is already in possession of the suit properties as lessee, he has the advantage of that

possession before seeking to specifically enforce the agreement Ex.A-2. Since he apprehended interference by the respondents, he filed not merely the suit for specific performance and permanent injunction but has come forward with I.A.276 of 1971 for an ad interim injunction. The second defendant in the suit has purchased the first item of the suit properties under the original of Ex.A-7 dated 16-2-1970, which is admittedly subsequent to the alleged agreement Ex.A-2. It is stated by the second defendant that he has got an agreement to purchase the second item of the suit properties also. The first defendant disputes the genuineness of the agreement Ex.A-2. But the same being the subject-matter of the suit, it need not be discussed and considered here.

3. It cannot be disputed that the appellant came on the suit lands only as a lessee. No doubt, the period of that lease has expired. Even though the respondents allege that the appellant has abandoned possession of the suit properties the appellant claims to be in actual possession thereof. The trial court while disposing of the interlocutory application did not advert as to who is in actual possession of the suit properties. The trial court seems to have doubted the genuineness of the agreement under Ex.A-2 at the stage of the interlocutory application itself and has further observed that after the lease under Ex.A-1, which has expired on 1-7-1971, the appellant has no legal right to continue in possession of the suit properties. It is not for the respondents to take the law into their own hands to dispossess the appellant when especially he has come forward with a case of actual possession on his part in seeking to specifically enforce the agreement under Ex.A-2, executed by the first respondent.

4. Sri T.R. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the appellant, brings to my notice I.A. No.50 of 1971 filed by the defendants before the Vacation Judge, Thanjavur, praying to restrain the appellant from in any way altering, re-constructing, re-erecting the fallen theatre and its allied construction. The said application was not pressed and consequently the same was dismissed, on the undertaking made by the appellant that he will not put up any construction on the latrine and booking-office and that he will remove the main fallen theatre and his things whenever he liked, and no new construction will be put on the suit lands. This undertaking is dated 21-7-1971. From this, Sri T.R. Srinivasan states that it is abundantly clear that the appellant is in actual possession of the suit properties lands and there is no question of any abando