R. K. MAHAJAN, J. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of Shri B. D. Agarwal, District Judge, Kanpur in Civil Appeal No. 335 of 1982 Satya Narain Mehrotra v. Smt. Shakuntala Kapoor. It is very interesting case. 2. The following facts are undisputed. The dispute relates to a portion on the ground floor comprising of one room, verandah, latrine and bath-room in premises No. 15/291-A, Civil Lines, Kanpur. Admittedly, Shri Surendra Nath Mehra was a tenant in this premises as per the finding of the two lower Courts. He left for Calcutta on 30th May, 1979 without the permission of the plaintiff with all bag and baggage as he wanted to start new evocation in his life there. Admittedly, the first floor portion of the building was under the tenan cy of the appellant-tenant since 1955 at the rate of Rs. 87. 50 per month. The portion of the ground floor was left out in July, 1965 at the rate of Rs. 58. 50 per month. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that after leaving, Shri Satya Narain Mehrotra, his brother with bad intention and to grab the portion of tenancy which were in possession of his brother and which he left after leaving for Calcutta started to get clean with an intent to get it occupied. The suit was filed on 31- 5- 1979 for perpetual injunction for entering and using the portion referred to above. The lower Court decreed the suit. The defendant appellant filed an appeal against the order of the Munsif, Havali dated 3-5-1982. The appellate Court dis missed the appeal vide order dated 6-8-1982. 4. Being aggrieved the appellant filed the present Second Appeal. During the course of arguments the substantial ques tion Nos. 2, 4 and 5 mentioned in the memo of appeal have been framed as substantial questions of law, which are quoted as under:- "2. Whether the plaintiff-respondent being admittedly out of possession, the suit for mere injunction was maintainable? 4. 4. Being aggrieved the appellant filed the present Second Appeal. During the course of arguments the substantial ques tion Nos. 2, 4 and 5 mentioned in the memo of appeal have been framed as substantial questions of law, which are quoted as under:- "2. Whether the plaintiff-respondent being admittedly out of possession, the suit for mere injunction was maintainable? 4. Whether the theory of surrender of tenancy by Sri Surendra Nath Mehra as concocted by the plaintiff- respondent having been found to be incorrect and the tenancy of Sri Surendra Nath Mehra having been found to be continuing, a decree for injunction could have been legally granted against the defendant- appellant from entering into premises in any manner whatsoever even though there is no allegation or grievance on the part of the tenant Sri Surendra Nath Mehra ? 5. Whether the defendant-appellant being the joint tenant of the premises in dispute or in the alternative being in possession of the premises in dispute, a mere suit for injunction was main tainable or not? 5. The plea of the appellant is that he was a co-tenant with his brother which was repelled by both the Courts below by sound reasonings. Since this finding of fact is by two Courts and I find no illegality in the appraisal of evidence or discussing of some important documents while arriving on a conclusion regarding this finding. So this finding is not disturbed and is maintained. 6. Shri Ranjeet Saxena, learned coun sel for the respondent has argued that both the Courts have given finding in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and the High Court should be reluctant to interfere. 7. During the course of argument em phasis has been laid down by the learned counsel for the appellant Shri K. M. Dayal on the following aspects. Firstly, he submits that even for argu ment sake the co-tenancy is not proved which he does not admit, then the suit for possession should have been filed on the basis of title. Pie further submits that mere suit for injunction does not lie. He has relied upon so many judicial precedents. There is no dispute that in certain circumstances mere suit for injunction does not lie. Pie further submits that mere suit for injunction does not lie. He has relied upon so many judicial precedents. There is no dispute that in certain circumstances mere suit for injunction does not lie. He has also stated that the best course was to apply to the competent authority under U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 for release of the accommodation as it had fallen vacant and the remedy was not by way of forcible occupation. The simple question in this case which to my mind is involved. Whether trespasser has a right to grab the possession when plea of co-tenancy has failed and as there was a tenant who was not a co-tenant has left for Calcutta. In Indian Society, it usually happens that the tenants leave the possession in good faith without writing that the possession has been surrendered. The very fact of vacating the premises and leaving for Calcutta with bag and baggage and family implies that he surrendered the possession and left the premises. The appel lant has no right to take the possession. It is not a case of the defendant that the posses sion was given by his brother in the inde pendent or joint tenancy which plea has failed. The plea of co-tenancy has been set up falsely and with a malafide intention to see that premises are not restored. The original tenant Surendra Nath Mehra who had left for Calcutta has also not filed any action as revealed from the record showing that landlord occupied the premises illegal ly after his vacating the house. The appellate Court has also observed that there is plead ing of the appellant that the wife and children of Surendra Nath Mehra were residing in the accommodation. They were not examined and adverse inference was drawn to the fact that they were not living there and the vacant possession was left. So from the circumstances there was surrender of possession and the defendant-appellant has no right to take a plea that the respon dent-plaintiff cannot enjoy the quite and peaceful possession. It is now settled law that the plaintiff can protect his possession rights as well as rights based on title and bringing of the suit on the very next day shows that the defendant was going to oc cupy the possession which was prevented by the plaintiff-respondent. It is now settled law that the plaintiff can protect his possession rights as well as rights based on title and bringing of the suit on the very next day shows that the defendant was going to oc cupy the possession which was prevented by the plaintiff-respondent. I am unable to agree with the submission of Shri Dayal. 8. So in the facts and circumstances of the case the suit for injunction is maintainable as the defendant has no semblance of possession or settled possession. The owner of the property is juridical possession and he has power to exclude others. The real ownership can always maintain the suit against a trespasser who has no title. In the facts and circumstances of the case there is no force in the appeal and it is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .