N YONUS SAIT Vs. T JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above revisions are filed against the order dismissing the revision petitioner/plaintiff's applications in I.A. Nos. 665 and 667 of 2006 in O.S. Nos. 169 and 170 of 2006 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Uthagamandalam, filed by him for grant of interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from putting up any illegal and unauthorised construction on his property.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: THE revision petitioner Yunus Sait is the owner of the residential cum non residential premises of the schedule mentioned suit property, which is known as Adama Buildings. He filed two suits one against T. Joseph in O.S. No. 169 of 2006 and Another in O.S. No. 170 of 2006 as against one Narayana Das Samtani. Both of them are admittedly the tenants of the buildings which consists of ground and first floor. It is also the admitted case of the parties that premises was rented out for residential as well as commercial purposes. It is also not in dispute that there was a fire accident and according to the revision petitioner/plaintiff, the petition premises were (sic) entirely burnt and destroyed in the said fire accident. According to him, the respondents/defendants attempted to put up illegal and unauthorised construction in the suit premises without the permission or concurrence of the landlord/plaintiff which necessitated him to file the two suits against them for a perpetual injunction restraining them or their men from putting up any construction in the suit property.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants contended that the revision petitions are not maintainable at all since only appeals would lie with the Appellate Court as against the orders passed by the trial Court in the Interlocutory Applications filed for grant of interim injunctions under Order 39Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. Thus, when there is a remedy available under Order 43Rule 1 read with Section 104 C.P.C., the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked as has been held by this Court in the decisions reported in S. Devi v. Adilakshmi Ammal Dharma Sathiram, Thirukkalikundram rep. by its present trustee (Santhathi's) Thiru P. Srinivasan S. Devi v. Adilakshmi Ammal Dharma Sathiram, Thirukkalikundram rep. by its present trustee (Santhathi's) Thiru P. Srinivasan S. Devi v. Adilakshmi Ammal Dharma Sathiram, Thirukkalikundram rep. by its present trustee (Santhathi's) Thiru P. Srinivasan (2005) 1 MLJ 178 and T. N. Electricity Board, rep. by its Supdt. Engineer, Vellore Electricity Distribution Circle and Another v. S. Dharma Lingam T. N. Electricity Board, rep. by its Supdt. Engineer, Vellore Electricity Distribution Circle and Another v. S. Dharma Lingam T. N. Electricity Board, rep. by its Supdt. Engineer, Vellore Electricity Distribution Circle and Another v. S. Dharma Lingam , (2006) 2 MLJ 619.