A mere occupant without title or lease cannot seek injunction against the true property owner.

JUDGMENT

Heard counsel for appellant.

2. The second appeal arises from judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge-1, Thiruvananthapuram in A.S.No.162 of 2007 refusing to interfere with the judgment and decree of learned Principal Munsiff, Thiruvananthapuram in O.S.No.505 of 2006. Respondent No.1 is the sister of appellant and respondent No.2, her husband. The suit property and the building thereon belonged to respondent No.1 as per Ext.B1, partition deed No.3691/1995. According to the appellant, he has been residing in that building from his childhood onwards and on the death of his parents he was granted a lease of the building on 18-09-2005 to reside there for a period of 11 months. On 02-03-2006 respondents wanted him to vacate the premises. Apprehencing forcible eviction, appellant moved the Court of learned Munsiff with a suit for prohibitory injunction against forcible eviction. Respondents contended that appellant is married and is residing in house No.7/2 Sriram Street, Saligramam, Chennai. During March, 2006 when appellant came to visit the respondents he was permitted to stay in the building in the suit property. They denied that there was any rental arrangement. Trial court found against the contention of appellant and dismissed the suit. That was confirmed by the first appellate court. It is contended by learned counsel for appellant that respondents have admitted possession of appellant over the building in the suit property and hence appellant is entitled to remain in possession until evicted in due course of law.

3. It is not disputed that the parents of appellant and respondent No.1 had a right of residence in the building in the suit property as per Ext.B1, partition deed and until their death, they stayed in that building. Ext.A3, ration card issued in the name of the parents of appellant and respondent No.1 mention the name of the appellant also in it. But, that can only be taken as because appellant was staying with his parents who had a right of residence in the building. Ext.A1 is a pass port issued to the appellant on 02-06-2005 and Ext.A2, the cover in which that passport was sent to the appellant by speed post. It shows his address as that of the building in question. Assuming so, that only means that the appellant was also occupying the building in question. Even according to the appellant, the rental arrangements was on 18-09-2005 while Exts.A1 to A3 came into existence before that when he was staying in the building with his parents. So, alleged possession of the appellant of the building even according to him is only from 18-09-2005. Though appellant claimed that he is a rentee of the building in question there is no evidence in that line.

4. The mere fact that appellant is occupying the building does not clothe him with authority or right to seek injunction against the true owner of the building. The Supreme Court in Premji Ratansey Shah Vs. Union of India (1994 (5) SCC 547) has held that no injunction could be issued against the true owner of the property. True, this Court in Mohammed Vs. Unni (1999 (1) KLT 756) explained the decision of the Supreme Court and held that when a person in possession has a right to remain in possession atleast under a colour of title, he is entitled to get injunction even against the true owner. In this case, appellant has no semblance of right to remain in occupation or possession of the building in question, nor has he any colour of title. Hence question of issue of injunction against the true owner of the property does not arise. Occupation of the building does not give any right of such possession. The grantor of permission cannot be prevented from re-entering the property on revocation of permission. No substantial question of law is involved for consideration and decision.

The second appeal is dismissed in limine.

THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/