In Brief
A tenant sued for permanent injunction to restrain the landlord from disturbing his possession of commercial premises. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the tenant failed to prove actual possession on the date of filing, noting absence of business licences, electricity connections, and rent payment for over 15 years. The First Appellate Court and High Court reversed this, presuming possession from a prior suit's withdrawal. The Supreme Court held that permanent injunction under the Specific Relief Act requires proof of actual possession through substantive evidence, not inferences. Since the tenant provided no credible evidence of possession and had not paid rent since 1991, the Court allowed the appeal and restored the trial court's dismissal.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.