Can an unlawful occupant seek a permanent injunction against the true owner of the property?

Paragraph 21Furthermore, about eight months prior to the present Suit, Ex-A.14 - Notice was issued by the first defendant herein stating that the plaintiff is in unauthorised possession of the suit property and calling upon him to either pay a monthly rent of Rs.500/- to first defendant or handover vacant possession of the suit property. Hence, the first defendant has followed due process of law to evict the plaintiff herein, who is a wrongful occupant. But the plaintiff herein neither paid rent nor handed over vacant possession of the suit property. This clearly shows that the plaintiff herein is neither bona fide person nor a tenant and has not approached this Court with clean hands. Substantial Questions of Laws (2) and (4) is answered accordingly. As regards Substantial Question of Law (5), firstly, the plaintiff herein is neither a tenant nor a lawful occupant and secondly, for that reason, he cannot seek injunction against the true owner. Substantial Question of Law (5) is answered accordingly.

Paragraph 23The earlier Suit was originally instituted in 1984. The registration certificate in Ex-A.9 is dated May 27, 1986. The present Suit was filed in December 1989. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case, erroneously found that the plaintiff is in settled possession for a long time without sufficient evidence and went on to decree the Suit, which is not justifiable. The First Appellate Court rightly relied on Vasantha Kamatchi's Case [cited supra] to hold that the present plaintiff being an unlawful occupant cannot seek permanent injunction against the first defendant here being the true owner of the suit property. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the First Appellate Court's Judgment and Decree. The Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Substantial Questions of Law (1) is answered accordingly.