Lawful possession can be protected by temporary injunction against eviction until due process is followed, emphasizing the necessity of establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable harm.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. P.K.Rath, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.R.Mahapatra, learned counsel for Opposite Parties.

2. Present CMP is directed challenging impugned judgment dated 13^th February 2025 passed in F.A.O. No.99 of 224 of the learned 2^nd Additional District Judge, Bhubaneswar (Annexure-1) and the order of learned Trial Court dated 26^th June 2024 (Annexure- 8) passed in I.A. No.01 of 2024 (arising out of C.S. No.455 of 2024), wherein the prayer for temporary injunction of the Plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC has been refused.

3. Present Petitioner is the Plaintiff who filed the aforesaid suit praying for permanent injunction against Defendant No.2 not to evict him without due process of law and not to interact the business of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s case is based on a house rent agreement dated 20^th August 2022 executed between Defendant No.1 and himself to be effective for a period of four years then to run a commercial shop (IMFL OFF SHOP). The suit property is a shop house situating over Plot No.298/2087. The suit plot was earlier owned by Defendant No.1 and others as a joint family property which was subsequently sold to Defendant No.2 on 16^th February 2024 and the disputes started thereafter.

4. Admittedly, the Plaintiff was running an IMFL OFF Shop in the suit house situating over the suit plot having license obtained from the Competent Authority dated 1^st April 2023 for a period of one year which was then extended up-to 31^st October 2023 and finally up-to 11^th September 2024. This license of IMFL OFF Shop granted by the department of Excise, Government of Odisha mentions about the house rent agreement dated 20^th August 2022 executed between Defendant No.1 and the Plaintiff. It is of course true that the license for running the IMFL OFF shop in the suit house was not extended after 11^th September 2024 for the dispute pending between the parties in respect of the suit house.

5. According to the Plaintiff, after Defendant No.2 managed to purchase the suit land from Defendant No.1 and other family members, he wanted to close down the business of the Plaintiff for the reason he having another IMFL ON shop adjacent to the suit house. In such premises the Plaintiff contends that when his admission into the suit shop house is lawful, Defendant No.2 should be prohibited from creating any disturbance to his possession unless and until the Plaintiff is lawfully evicted therefrom.

6. Defendant No.2 after his appearance in the suit has filed his written statement disputing possession of the Plaintiff over the suit house by raising his counter claim for eviction of the Plaintiff from the suit shop house. As per Defendant No.2, the Plaintiff’s induction in the shop house as a tenant under Defendant No.1 is disputed since there was a lease deed executed on 21^st April 2022 by Defendant No.1 with one Ashok Kumar Swain. Thus it is contended by the Defendants that the Plaintiff was never in lawful possession of the suit house and he managed the Government authorities to get the IMFL OFF Shop license in his favour by producing the forged house rent agreement dated 20^th August 2022.

7. In such background of the facts in controversy, both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court have refused to grant temporary injunction in favour of the Plaintiff with regard to his possession over the suit shop house mainly on the ground of disputing the house rent agreement dated 20^th August 2022. As per the Trial Court, the Plaintiff did not produce any valid house rent agreement in support of his possession over the suit shop house and accord