The court clarified that an injunction granting eviction must adhere to legal standards and not infringe upon a tenant's rights.

1. The suit from which the present appeal arises has been filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction of the defendant/appellant, claiming that the defendant is a monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises.

2. In such suit, an application was filed praying for temporary and ad interim injunction restraining the defendant/appellant from going over and/or interfering with the suit property and/or raising any type of pucca construction or “not to lock and key” the suit property till disposal of the application.

3. Upon hearing the injunction application, the learned Trial Judge allowed the said application by restraining the defendant/appellant from going over and interfering with the suit land of the plaintiff or from alienating the suit property or from changing the nature and character of the same or from putting lock and key on the premises till disposal of the suit. The reasoning of the learned Trial Judge was absurd, to the effect that a civil suit, when it goes to trial, “takes time to arrive at a judicious conclusion” and till then the plaintiff suffers irreparable loss and injury as he neither gets to enjoy the suit property nor get any income from the suit property.

4. Initially, by mistake, a miscellaneous appeal was filed before the District Judge against the said order, but subsequently the same was withdrawn by the appellant and this appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Trial Judge.

5. The impugned order is ex facie absurd, since by way of injunction, the learned Trial Judge has granted the entire relief of eviction as sought in the suit; more so, in the teeth of the specific admission of the plaintiff/respondent that the appellant is a premises tenant in respect of the property, without following the rigours of the governing law.

6. Thus, we prima facie find that the impugned order is palpably illegal and de hors all known tenets of law.

7. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted and shall be heard on the grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal and on the questions as formulated above.

8. There shall be stay of operation of the impugned order, bearing Order No. 07 dated July 05, 2025, to the limited extent that the same restrained the appellant/petitioner from going over and interfering with the suit land of the plaintiff and from putting lock and key on the suit premises.

9. However, it is made clear that the other portions of the impugned order restraining the defendant/appellant from changing the nature and character of the suit property is not stayed.

10. The above order of stay shall continue till disposal of the present application.

11. The appellant shall serve copies of the memorandum of the appeal as well as CAN 1 of 2025 on the respondent indicating that the application shall be listed for hearing before the regular Bench having determination on September 15, 2025, subject to the discretion of the said Bench, when an affidavit-of-

service to that effect shall be filed by the appellant.

12. Affidavit-in-opposition to the application, if any, shall be filed by August 28, 2025; reply, if any, shall be filed by September 09, 2025.