A person in unlawful possession may not be entitled to injunction relief.

Headnote:
Injunction - Possession - Trespasser
Fact of the Case:

Petitioner sought permanent and mandatory injunction to restrain respondent No.2 from interfering in his possession of the shop, which was dismissed by both lower courts due to petitioner being a trespasser.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner was not a lawful occupant of the shop and therefore not entitled to the injunction. The order passed was considered justified and no case for interference was made out.
Issues: Petitioner's unlawful possession, entitlement to injunction
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the petitioner's status as a trespasser and lack of lawful lease for the shop.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's suit for injunction.

Judgment

1. Petitioner filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction with a prayer that respondent No.2 be restrained from interfering in his possession in the shop, in dispute, forcibly. In that suit, he also moved an application for interim injunction, which was dismissed. He failed in appeal. It has been noticed by both the Courts below that so far as status of the petitioner is concerned, he is not better than a tress-passer. At no time, this shop was leased out to him. He may have, with the connivance of respondent No.1, entered in possession of the property. This Court feels that the order passed is perfectly justified. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document