HARI NATH TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellants. ( 2 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated June 15,1998 whereby the trial Court had allowed I. A. I filed in O. S. 10577/98. That application had been moved under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC seeking temporary injunction directing the defendants, their servants and agents not to dispossess the plaintiff from the schedule property, otherwise than in due process of law. ( 3 ) PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT's case is that he has been and he is a caterer and operating a canteen in the premises belonging to defendant No. 1 i. e. , appellant No. 1 and he has alleged that he has been running the canteen since 1992 and has been supplying food and other articles at subsidised rates to the staff and other office bearers of defendant No. 1. The plaintiff has further asserted that he has been running the canteen under the permission given by the defendants and now the plaintiff apprehend that defendants will try to throw away the plaintiff by use of force. So he had filed the suit for decree for permanent injunction and application for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from possession of the property. Objections were filed. The trial Court after considering the matter opined that the plaintiff has made out prima facie case and plaintiff-respondent is in possession. The trial Court further found that if injunction is not granted and the plaintiff-respondent is dispossessed otherwise than under law, he will suffer irreparably. So opining, the trial Court granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. The defendants have come up in appeal before this Court. ( 4 ) AS mentioned earlier, I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants contended that the plaintiff-respondent is not holding any licence. Hence plaintiff-respondent's possession is illegal and he is not entitled to protection of law or for grant of injunction in his favour. ( 6 ) THESE contentions have hotly been contested by the learned Counsel for the respondent. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the plaintiff has been in possession for the last six years and he entered into possession under lawful permission. ( 6 ) THESE contentions have hotly been contested by the learned Counsel for the respondent. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the plaintiff has been in possession for the last six years and he entered into possession under lawful permission. ( 7 ) WHETHER plaintiff's possession is or continues to be illegal or not is a matter to be decided in course of trial of the suit and whether there has been a permission in his favour to enter the canteen and make use of it, these are the questions to be determined by the court. . below in course of trial of the suit. No doubt, it appears that plaintiff, whether his possession is legal or illegal, is in settled possession of the property as he has been carrying his business for the last six years in the accommodation in dispute. A person who is in the settled possession of the property for a long period, even if he is a trespasser or a person in unauthorised possession, he cannot be allowed to be thrown away on the street except in accordance with law and procedure established by law and such a person is entitled to protect his possession. If such a person is thrown out of his possession illegally even by true owner in a manner not keeping pace with law and procedure of law. Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act provides him the remedy by way of suit for possession. It clearly reveals that if a person is in settled possession, he is entitled to protect his possession. When I so observe, I find support for this view from the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of puran Singh and Others v. The State of punjab wherein their Lordships' of the supreme Court have also followed the view expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Munshiram v. Delhi Administration. When I so observe, I find support for this view from the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of puran Singh and Others v. The State of punjab wherein their Lordships' of the supreme Court have also followed the view expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Munshiram v. Delhi Administration. Dealing with the right of defence under Section 96 of the Indian penal Code, their Lordships have observed in paragraph 14 of the report as under:"it is true that no one including the true owner has a right to dispossess the trespasser by force if the trespasser is in settled possession of the land and in such a case unless he is evicted in due course of law, he is entitled to defend his possession even against the rightful owner. But stray or even intermittent acts of trespass do not give such a right against the true owner. The possession which a trespasser is entitled to defend against the rightful owner must be a settled possession extending over a sufficiently long period and acquiesced in by the true owner. A casual act of possession would not have the effect of interrupting the possession of the rightful owner. "in the case of Puran Singh and Others v. The state of Punjab (supra), their Lordships have observed as under :"this Court clearly pointed out that where a trespasser was in settled possession of the land he is not entitled to be evicted except in due course of law and he is further entitled to resist or defend his possession even against the rightful owner who tries to dispossess him. The only condition laid down by this Court was that the possession of the trespasser must be settled possession. "their Lordships further observe,"thus in our opinion the nature of possession in such cases which may entitle a trespasser to exercise the right of private defence of property and person should contain the following attributes : (i) that the trespasser must be in actual physical possession of the property over a sufficiently long period; (ii) that the possession must be to the knowledge either express or implied of the owner or without any attempt at concealment and which contains an element of animus possidendi. The nature of possession of the trespasser would however be a matter to be decided on facts and circumstances of each case; (iii) the process of dispossession of the true owner by the trespasser must be complete and final and must be acquiesced in by the true owner; and (iv) that one of the usual tests to determine the quality of settled possession, in the case of culturable land, would be whether or not the trespasser, after having taken possession, had grown any crop. If the crop had been grown by the passer, then even the true owner has no right to destroy the crop grown by the trespasser and take forcible possession, in which case the trespasser will have a right of private defence and the true owner will have no right of private defence. These principles logically flow from a long catena of cases decided by this Court as well as other High Courts some of which have been referred to in the judgment of this Court in Munshi ram's case, AIR 1968 SC 702 - (1968 Cri LJ 806) (supra ). "in view of the finding that the -plaintiff is running the canteen since 1992 with nine casual workers and the suit was filed in 1998, clearly reveal that the plaintiff was prima facie in settled possession. I may make it clear that final finding on this aspect has to be recorded at the final trial of the case on evidence adduced by the parties in one way or other. But, prima facie, I mean to observe, that though the finding given at this stage is not binding. It appears that the Court, in view of findings, was justified in granting temporary injunction pending decision of the suit. The appeal has got no force. As such, it has to be dismissed. But it is kept open to the owner-appellant that he may opt and adopt the process established by law to take possession if in its view plaintiff-respondent is an unauthorised occupant. For taking possession, no doubt there is a law such as Karnataka Act of 1974. So this injunction is limited in its scope. But, it does not restrict the right of owner to act in accordance with taw for ousting the plaintiff, if in its opinion plaintiff is a trespasser. Subject to the above observations, this appeal is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed. So this injunction is limited in its scope. But, it does not restrict the right of owner to act in accordance with taw for ousting the plaintiff, if in its opinion plaintiff is a trespasser. Subject to the above observations, this appeal is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .