JUDGMENT Vinod K. Sharma, J. - Present revision petition has been filed against the dismissal of application moved by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak as affirmed by the learned District Judge Rohtak. 2. The petitioner had claimed the injunction on the ground that he was the tenant in the property in dispute and therefore, was entitled to protect his possession. However, the learned Courts below came to the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to show that he was tenant or licensee qua the suit property and therefore, his possession was that of a trespasser. Learned Courts below also came to a prima facie conclusion that the property was under the ownership of respondent No. 6 whereas the petitioner was claiming tenancy under Tej Krishan Sharma and after his death from respondent No. 7 and her daughter who claimed to be the widow of Tej Krishan Sharma. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in case Walter Louis Franklin (dead) through Lrs. v. George Singh (dead) through Lrs., 1997(2) RCR(Civil) 41 to contend that as the petitioner was in possession of the property he was entitled to injunction even against true owner. 4. The petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case Som Nath v. Lachhman Singh, 2000(1) RCR(Civil) 100 to contend that the courts below were only required to see three basic ingredients before grant of temporary injunction i.e. prima facie case, irreparable loss and balance of convenience. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that once the petitioner was held to be in possession in any capacity he was entitled to injunction. 5. However, I find no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Honble Supreme Court in the case of Sapan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner, 2004(3) Supreme Court Cases 137 has been pleased to hold that a person in unlawful possession has no right to claim injunction against the true owner. The Honble Supreme Court has further held that the judicial proceedings cannot be used to protect or perpetuate a wrong committed by a person who approaches the Court. The Honble Supreme Court has further held that the judicial proceedings cannot be used to protect or perpetuate a wrong committed by a person who approaches the Court. It is the settled law that no injunction could be granted against a true owner at the instance of the person in unlawful possession. 6. In the present case it is not in dispute that the petitioner in connivance with respondent No. 7 had come in possession of the property who had no right to eject the petitioner as they had no title or claim in the property. The stand of the petitioner that he was put in possession by late Tej Krishan Sharma was not believed for want of evidence or any receipt of rent. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly held him to be a trespasser. 7. In addition to this, it may further be noticed that in the present case the petitioner had not come to the Court with clean hands and had sought protection of respondent No. 7 to lay his claim of tenancy, even though respondent No. 6 was true owner under the gift-deed executed in her favour. In view of this, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and dismiss the same. Petition dismissed.