8.It is seen that now the dispute is only with regard to the portion lying adjacent to the ground floor portion and situated below the stair case. Though it is claimed by the plaintiff as though the said portion was let out to him by describing the schedule of the suit property as though two shops viz., electronic and briyani shops were let out to the plaintiff by the defendant, the fact remains as found by both the courts that the ground floor consisting of only one portion alone has been let out to the plaintiff and not the other one. In so far as the other portion viz., the portion in which briyani shop is said to be run is concerned, there is absolute no evidence let in by the plaintiff to show that the same was let out to him by the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff has not proved the tenancy in respect of the said portion. Needless to say that the relief of injunction, cannot be granted as a matter of course or as a matter of right, unless the person who seeks such relief establishes his case with concrete and material evidence showing that he has some semblance of right to retain such possession. Court is not there to protect such an illegal possession or give its seal of approval of a trespass, by way of grant of injunction merely because such possession is pleaded. If such kind of relief is granted to persons holding such illegal possession, it would rather encourage unlawful attempts in respect of immovable properties, which in my considered view has to be nipped at the bud. It is well settled that the relief of injunction being an equitable one as well as discretionary, cannot be granted at the instance of a person who himself is guilty of inequitable conduct, as held by the Apex Court in a decision reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2010, Kanchusthabam Satyanarayana vs. Namuduri Atchutaramayya, as follows:
