Tenants in possession may be dispossessed only through due process of law.

The plaintiffs sued for a perpetual injunction concerning shop premises and sought temporary protection against interference with their possession.

The Trial Court granted an injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the specified shops pending the suit; the First Appellate Court affirmed that order.

The petitioner, defendant No. 1, challenged both decisions under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The High Court recorded that the plaintiffs were in possession under leases, including a lease executed by defendants Nos. 2–4 on 7 December 2024, and that the petitioner was allegedly attempting to dispossess them.

1. Whether the concurrent orders granting temporary protection against dispossession disclosed an error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution

2. Whether the plaintiffs, found to be in possession of the suit premises, could be dispossessed otherwise than through due process of law

Article 227 confers supervisory jurisdiction on the High Court, to be exercised sparingly to keep subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority; it is not a jurisdiction to correct ordinary errors of fact or law, and intervention is reserved for exceptional cases involving a manifest miscarriage of justice (*Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath*, (2015) 5 SCC 423, as quoted at para. 18).

In considering interim relief in a suit for bare injunction, the court considered possession and interference as they stood on the date of the suit.

A person in possession cannot be forcibly dispossessed and must be evicted through due process of law.

The High Court treated the plaintiffs’ possession as undisputed and noted the leases and alleged attempt by defendant No. 1 to dispossess them.

Since the plaintiffs’ possession was the relevant consideration in the bare-injunction suit, and dispossession had to be pursued through due process, the courts below had properly granted interim protection.

The petitioner’s challenge did not establish the exceptional error or manifest miscarriage of justice required for supervisory interference under Article 227.

It dismissed the writ petition, leaving the temporary injunction in force pending disposal of the suit.