Tenant in possession cannot be evicted high-handedly and is entitled to police protection for decree enforcement.

The Petitioner (plaintiff) filed a suit (O.S. No. 370 of 2005) for permanent injunction to prevent eviction except by due process of law.

While the Trial Court dismissed the suit, the First Appellate Court (A.S. No. 83 of 2006) reversed it, granting the injunction.

The Respondent (defendants) preferred a Second Appeal (S.A. No. 552 of 2007), but their stay petition (M.P. No. 1 of 2007) was dismissed on September 3, 2007.

Claiming the respondents interfered with his attempt to reopen his shop despite the decree, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 108 of 2009 seeking police protection.

The Trial Court dismissed the I.A., holding that the petitioner failed to prove interference.

The petitioner challenged this dismissal via the present Civil Revision Petition.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to police protection to safeguard his possession and ensure the fruits of the decree granted by the First Appellate Court.

2. Whether the Trial Court committed an irregularity in dismissing the application for police protection given the lack of a stay in the pending Second Appeal.

The court applied Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which grants inherent powers to the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.

It further relied on Article 227 of the Constitution of India regarding the High Court's power of superintendence over subordinate courts.

The court also applied the principle that a tenant, even if in arrears or violating terms, cannot be evicted in a high-handed manner and must be removed only through "due process of law".

The High Court heard this Revision Petition alongside the Second Appeal. In the Second Appeal, the court concluded that although the petitioner was a tenant who had been thrown out during the pendency of the suit, he remained entitled to protection from non-legal eviction.

The court noted that the respondents had failed to obtain a stay on the First Appellate Court's decree for nearly six years.

Applying the law to the facts, the court reasoned that since the petitioner held a valid (though modified) decree for injunction, he was entitled to protect his possession to enjoy the fruits of said decree.

The court found the Trial Court's refusal to grant police protection improper given the circumstances and the simultaneous judgment in the Second Appeal which affirmed the petitioner's right to remain until evicted by law.

The court ordered the jurisdictional police to provide suitable protection to the Revision Petitioner to reopen his shop and conduct business. This relief was made subject to the petitioner complying with conditions set in the Second Appeal (S.A. No. 552 of 2007), specifically the deposit of ₹40,000 in rent arrears and a monthly rent of ₹400, failure of which would automatically withdraw the benefit of the decree.