Summary
The plaintiff seeking an injunction against interference with possession failed to prove actual possession when filing suit. Withdrawal of an earlier landlord’s suit did not establish his continued occupation years later. The premises’ condition, lack of licences and requisite electricity connection, non-payment of rent and other evidence supported the trial court’s rejection of his claim. The injunction granted on appeal was set aside and the suit dismissed.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiff proved possession on the date of suit so as to obtain an injunction restraining the owner from interference.
Provisions considered
- Section 38, Specific Relief Act, 1963For the possession-protecting injunction claimed here, the plaintiff bore the burden of establishing actual possession when suit was filed; an inference from the earlier withdrawn litigation did not discharge it. (¶¶ 7–11, 17–18)
Held
- A plaintiff seeking to restrain interference with claimed possession must prove actual physical possession on the filing date. The earlier suit and withdrawal purshis did not justify shifting that burden to the defendant to prove subsequent vacation. (¶¶ 8–11, 17–18)
- The poor state of the premises, absence of supporting repair records, necessary business licences and fabrication-work electricity connection, and witness evidence supported the trial court’s conclusion that the claimed business occupation was unproved. (¶ 9–13)
- Non-payment of rent since the earlier proceedings and suppression of that fact, together with the later inconsistent claim to a larger area, also weighed against equitable relief on this record. The appellate inference from the withdrawn suit could not displace the trial court’s evidentiary assessment. (¶ 14–18)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and plaintiff’s injunction suit dismissed. No costs.