A.O. No. 353 of 2009 Hon. Prafulla C. Pant, J. Shri P.C. Bisht, Advocate, present for the appellant. Shri T.A. Khan, Advocate, present for respondents No. 1 and 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal, is directed against the order dated 12.10.2009, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nainital, in suit No. 93 of 2009, whereby said court, has rejected the application 6-C, for temporary injunction, moved by the plaintiff (present appellant). Admittedly, the plaintiff/appellant was tenant in the property in question and initially the building was taken on rent by her for 11 months on 06.08.2005. It appears that the tenancy was got extended from time to time and finally expired in June 2009. Thereafter, there is no extension of tenancy. As such, the plaintiff/appellant is no more a tenant in the property in question. She has sought temporary injunction against the true owner/landlord. The trial court after hearing the parties found that it is not a fit case to grant temporary injunction against the true owner/landlord, as the plaintiff/appellant had no right to continue his occupation in the building in question. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order, this Court does not find any error committed by the court below. This Court is in full agreement with the view taken by the trial court. In view of the principle of law laid down in C. Albert Morris Vs. K. Chandrasekaran and others (2006) 1 SCC Pg. 228, the trial court appears to have rightly rejected the application for temporary injunction, as there was no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff. For the reasons, as discussed above, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the suit, this appeal is dismissed summarily. (Misc. Application No. 9008 of 2009, also stands dismissed). (P. C. P., J.) Dt. 22.10.2009 S