A person who is inducted into the premises in breach of a covenant in the lease agreement cannot claim an injunction to protect their possession, as it would nullify the effect of Section 38(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and defeat the rights of the lessor.

This second appeal arises out of a suit which the plaintiff-appellant filed seeking a permanent injunction to restrain defendant No. 1 Nagar Maliapalika from taking forcible possession of quarter No. 2, block No. 61 of S. D. Colony, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur. The suit was brought with allegations that the aforesaid quarter was rented out at Rs. 10/- per month sometime in 1961 by defendant No. 1 Nagar Maliapalika to defendant No. 2 Taliir Alimad. Ever since the very beginning the defendant No. 2 was keeping the plaintiff as his sub-tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 10/- with the knowledge of defendant No 1 and with its implied consent. In January 1964, the plaintiff and other sub-tenants received notices from Nagar Maliapalika, Kanpur regarding their occupation of the quarters. The committee of the Nagar Maliapalika wanted to create direct tenancy with the sub-tenants. It was alleged that defendant No. 1 was trying to evict the plaintiff forcibly and illegally and hence the suit. The defendant No. 1 in its written statement contended that the quarter was allotted to defendant No. 2 on Rs. 13. 50 per months rent and as certain amenities were not provided in the beginning, a rent of Rs. 10/- per month was charged for such period as the amenities were not provided. The creation of any sub-tenancy with the implied consent of the answering defendant was denied. It was asserted that the committee wanted to create direct tenancy with those unauthorised occupants who were dehoused persons for whom the quarters were really meant. It was contended that the allotment in favour of defendant No. 2 was on the express condition that he will not assign, sublet or transfer his right in part or in whole. It was discovered on 26th December, 1963 that the defendant No. 2 had sublet his quarter to the plaintiff. Raja Ram, the plaintiff, was, therefore, called upon to appear before the committee and since he was not a dehoused person, he was treated as a trespasser and his illegal occupation was not recognised. It was alleged that the plaintiff being a trespasser, he was not entitled to the equitable relief of injunction and not being a tenant was not entitled to maintain the suit. Certain other pitas were taken which it is not necessary to notice in this appeal. The trial court thed the suit and dismissed the same. The trial court gave a finding that the plaintiff had been inducted by defendant No. 2 without consent express or implied of the defendant No. 1, Nagar Maliapalika, and that this was against the express terms on the basis of which the quarter was let out to defendant No. 2 by the Nagar Maliapalika. The plaintiff, therefore, was held not entitled to claim any injunction. It seems that in the trial court, in his statement under Order X Rule 2 C. P. C. the plaintiff stated that he was a joint tenant along with defendant No. 2 and not a sub-tenant of the said defendant. Thereafter, he moved an amendment application for getting the plaint amended but the amendment application was rejected on the ground that the plaintiff could not be allowed to change the nature of his suit in such a drastic manner. It will thus be seen that the plaintiff s stand in the trial court was wholly contradictory and inconsistent. While in the pleadings, he asserted the case of sub-tenancy, in his statement under Order X Rule 2 C,p. C. he claimed cotenancy rights. The finding of fact recorded by the trial court is that he was neither a sub-tenant nor a cotenant of the defendant No, 2. The lower appellate court affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the plaintiff s appeal.

In the second appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised a contention that unless the tenant in chief was ejected, the plaintiff could not be evicted, whatever the latters status might be whether he was a cotenant or a sub-tenant or a licencee of the defendant No. 2. It is not necessary to examine the validity of that question as we are not dealing