Judgment :- 1. This civil revision petition by the defendant in the suit, is against the order dated 4-8-1989 in C.M.A. 94 of 1989 on the file of the 8th Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, granting interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs respondents herein, restraining the defendants-petitioner herein from interfering with the alleged possession of the plaintiffs of the suit building. The trial court, in I.A. 17446 of 1988, refused to grant the injunction. But, as stated above, in the C.M.A. interim injunction has been granted in favour of the plaintiffs Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has come on revision to this court. 2. First of all, the interim injunction that has been granted is even beyond the scope of the prayer in the above said I.A. 17446 of 1988 as well as the prayer in the suit itself. The prayer in the suit is for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the said possession ‘except under due process of law’. But when the appellate Court granted injunction, it has, in its fair order, granted a blanket injunction, without adding the above said expression ‘except under due process of law.” I n fact, the decretal order of the appellate court states that the defendant should not interfere with the abovesaid possession in whatever manner possible So the interim injunction as granted is beyond the scope of the prayer in the I.A. 3. That apart, the appellate Court, without coming to the conclusion even prima facie as to whether the plaintiffs are in lawful possession of the building in question, has granted the interim injunction. It says that the fact whether the said possession is lawful or not and whether the plaintiffs are only obstructors, had to be decided only in the trial of the suit. This is not a correct approach. Prima facie at least, it has to come to the conclusion that the possession is lawful. Then only, it can grant Interim injunction, If prima facie possession is wrongful, the court cannot grant interim injunction (Vide the decisions reported in Alamelu Achi v. Ponniah 1 and K. V. Narayan v. Sharada Gowda 2. This is not a correct approach. Prima facie at least, it has to come to the conclusion that the possession is lawful. Then only, it can grant Interim injunction, If prima facie possession is wrongful, the court cannot grant interim injunction (Vide the decisions reported in Alamelu Achi v. Ponniah 1 and K. V. Narayan v. Sharada Gowda 2. The case of the plaintiffs-respondents herein in their plaint is that they are the tenants of the suit property under the defendant-petitioner and that the first plaintiff became so by paying Rs 60,000 on 21-7-1986 as a lump-sum towards rent starting from August 1986 to July 1992, and that the second plaintiff became so, by paying a sum of Rs. 30,000 to the defendant on 27-7-1983 in a lump-sum towards rent for ten years from August 1983 to July 1993. But, despite the fact that the abovesaid sums are huge sums admittedly there is no document to prove, the payment of the said sums or the taking of the respective portions of the suit properties on lease by the said plaintiffs. There is no lease deed. So prima facie at least the above said version of the plaintiffs cannot be believed at this interlocutory stage. On the other hand, the defendant had filed documents, showing that the suit property was let out to three other persons and that the defendant filed rent control eviction petitions against them for their eviction, which proceeding went up to Supreme Court and thereby the eviction order obtained, was confirmed by the dismissal of the Supreme Court Special leave petitions by the said tenants on 30-4-1989. No doubt, certain documents like letters and receipts given by third parties have been filed by the plaintiffs to show that these documents were addressed to the plaintiffs, at the address of the suit property. But, in the light of other evidence and circumstances of the case as mentioned above, these document cannot be given any weight at this interlocutory stage. The plaintiffs have not produced any document by way of letters or otherwise, received from the defendant and addressed to their alleged address at the suit property. For all these and other reasons, the trial court has come to the conclusion at the interlocutory stage that there is no document produced by the plaintiffs, showing the relationship of landlord and tenants between the defendant and the plaintiffs. 4. For all these and other reasons, the trial court has come to the conclusion at the interlocutory stage that there is no document produced by the plaintiffs, showing the relationship of landlord and tenants between the defendant and the plaintiffs. 4. In the light of the above circumstances, I confirm the order of the trial court and set aside the order of the lower appellate court and hence allow the civil revision petition with costs.