HAR GOBIND Vs. SHANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority dated January 27, 1989, whereby the order of the Rent Controller dated September 21, 1988, declining ad interim injunction under Order XXXIX rules I and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (hereinafter called the Code), was set aside and the tenants were restrained from making any construction on the premises in question, till the final disposal of the application for ejectment

(2.) THE landlady Shrimati Shanti Devi filed the ejectment application before the Rent Controller. Therein, she also moved an application purporting to be under Order XXXIX rules l and 2 of the Code, restraining the defendants from raising any construction on the demised premises. The application was contested on behalf of the tenants. The learned Rent Controller found that neither the landlady had a prima facie case, nor there was any balance of convenience in her favour and, thus, declined the ad interim injunction However, on appeal, the learned Appellate Authority found that the landlady had a prima facie case for the purpose of temporary injunction. Moreover, the balance of convenience lay in restraining the tenants from changing the nature of the site, in question, otherwise, there was a chance of irreparable loss having been caused to the landlady.

(3.) THE only argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is that no such application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code was maintainable before the Rent Controller. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Ram Gopal Banarosi Dass v. Satish Kumar, 1986 (1) R. C. R. 236, and Gurdial Singh v. Govind Ram,. 1986 (1)R. C. R. 575.