SUVRA GHOSH,J. - (1.) The appeal is directed against an order dated June 11, 2019 passed on an injunction application in a suit relating to a small office space in a building across the street from this court which is teeming with lawyers. The plaintiff-respondents are Advocates.
(2.) There is no dispute that the appellant herein is the owner of the property. There appears also to be little dispute that the appellant or the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant as landlord created a tenancy in favour of a person without any right to sublet or create any sub-tenancy and such tenancy has since been surrendered. The plaintiffs, claiming to have been inducted into the premises by the tenant who has since surrendered the tenancy, instituted the suit by asserting to be in possession of the spaces in question of a particular floor of the building. It does not appear, on a meaningful reading of the plaint, that any credible case of tenancy or sub-tenancy or lawful entry into possession by the plaintiffs is made out in the plaint. In particular, there does not appear to be any reference to any rent paid or attempted to be paid or even any agreement as to the rent or the other circumstances pertaining to the alleged possession of the plaintiffs at the suit premises.
(3.) Despite such position and despite it being apparent that the appellant herein was the true owner of the property, an order of injunction has been issued in favour of the plaintiffs on the reasoning that no person in possession of any immovable property can be dispossessed therefrom otherwise than in accordance with procedure established by law.;