Prohibitory injunction over hospital premises can proceed without prior possession suit where former directors lack any subsisting right

Where occupation of hospital chambers arose from the defendants' former roles as directors and doctors, and permission to use the premises had been withdrawn, the company could seek a prohibitory injunction without first suing for possession. The defendants' continued occupation was not treated as settled or adverse possession, but as possession attributable to the company, so a terminated occupant could not claim an independent right to remain or interfere with the owner's business. Interim restraint was also justified because continued interference would disrupt hospital operations, cause irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured preserving the company's control over the premises.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the plaintiff could maintain a suit for prohibitory injunction without first seeking possession, where the defendants' occupation of the hospital chambers was traceable to their position as former directors and the permission to use the chambers had been withdrawn; (ii) whether the interim relief of injunction was justified on the tests of balance of convenience and irreparable injury.

Issue (i): whether the plaintiff could maintain a suit for prohibitory injunction without first seeking possession, where the defendants' occupation of the hospital chambers was traceable to their position as former directors and the permission to use the chambers had been withdrawn.

Analysis: The defendants' claim to a perpetual right to practice from the hospital premises had already been rejected in earlier proceedings, and their occupation of the chambers was held not to be that of a trespasser in settled possession or adverse possession. Their entry into and use of the chambers arose from their relationship with the company as directors and doctors, so their possession, in law, was attributable to the company. In such a situation, the plaintiff was not required to first sue for possession before seeking injunctive protection. The Court relied on the principle that a terminated agent or ex-employee cannot assert possession on his own behalf and may be restrained from interfering with the owner's business.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to seek a prohibitory injunction simplicitor, and the plea that a prior suit for possession was mandatory was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the interim relief of injunction was justified on the tests of balance of convenience and irreparable injury.

Analysis: The Court held that continued interference by the defendants would disrupt the hospital's functioning and cause injury that could not be adequately compensated in money, whereas the defendants had no subsisting legal right to continue using the chambers after withdrawal of permission and removal from directorship. The injunction sought was not treated as a mandatory injunction changing the status quo, because the legal possession was treated as remaining with the company. On the comparative prejudice test, the balance of convenience favoured the hospital.

Conclusion: The requirements for interim injunction were satisfied and restraining the defendants from entering the hospital premises, trespassing, interfering with hospital work, and carrying on professional work therefrom was warranted.

Final Conclusion: Interim protective relief was granted in favour of the plaintiff, preserving the hospital's control over the premises during the pendency of the suit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where occupation of premises arises from a fiduciary or employment-like relationship with the owner company and the occupier has no subsisting independent right, the company may seek prohibitory injunction without first suing for possession, and interim restraint may issue if balance of convenience and irreparable harm favour the company.

---