Temporary injunction and unlawful possession: courts must weigh prima facie rights, public interest, and project delay before restraining the true owner.

Temporary injunction will not be granted in favour of a party in unlawful possession against the true owner unless a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury are shown. Here, the appellants had no subsisting right to remain in possession because the acquisition process had concluded, possession had been taken, the leave and licence had expired, and the eviction order had attained finality. The municipal resolutions did not create any enforceable right or title. In interlocutory relief affecting a public project, the court must also weigh public interest and the prejudice caused by delay, and may consider compensation or damages where relevant. The ad interim injunction was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants, being in unlawful possession after an eviction order had attained finality, were entitled to ad interim injunction restraining the Corporation from taking possession, and whether the court should consider public interest and potential damages while granting interlocutory injunction in a suit affecting a public project.

Analysis: Temporary injunction can be granted only where a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury are established. After acquisition proceedings had culminated, possession had been taken, the leave and licence had expired, and the eviction order had become final, the appellants had no subsisting legal right to remain in possession. A party in unlawful possession cannot ordinarily seek injunction against the true owner. The municipal resolutions relied on did not create any enforceable right or title in favour of the appellants. In matters affecting public utility, the court must also weigh public interest and the prejudice caused by delay in implementation of the project. The court may further mould relief by considering compensation or damages where injunction is refused or where the defendant suffers loss by reason of interim restraint.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to ad interim injunction, and the order granting such relief was rightly set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because no equitable or legal basis existed to protect unlawful possession against the rightful owner, particularly where the restraint would obstruct a public purpose.

Ratio Decidendi: A temporary injunction cannot be granted in favour of a person in unlawful possession against the true owner unless a strong prima facie right, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury are established, and public interest is a relevant factor in interlocutory relief where a public project is impeded.

---