JUDGMENT
M.M. Kumar, J.
1. This revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, the Code’) is directed against the order dated February 15, 2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, dismissing the appeal of the defendant-petitioners against the order dated May 22, 2001. In the order dated May 22, 2001, the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana had allowed the application of the plaintiff-respondents filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code and has granted injunction restraining defendant-petitioners, their agents, employees, servants and associates’ from effecting any structural alterations or additions. They have further been restrained from changing the existing position or effecting major repairs in the shop illegally and forcibly forming portion of the property situated in Kachi Gali, Ludhiana without the prior consent of the landlord or without the prior permission of the Rent Controller.
2. Brief facts of the case which led to the filing of the present revision petition are that the plaintiff-respondents filed a civil suit No. 870 of 29.9.1999 for permanent injunction restraining defendant-petitioner, their agents their employees or servants from making any structural alterations or additions in the suit property. Alongwith the suit, plaintiff-respondents also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules I and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code for grant of ad interim injunction which was granted by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana and the appeal against the same has been dismissed on 22.5.2001. Defendant-petitioners have averred that they had filed a civil Suit on 29.9.1999 for permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff-respondents from causing any damage to the roof of the shop which is subject matter of the suit and is in their possession by making room for seepage of water with the malafide intention of damaging the roof and goods of the defendant-petitioners. It is claimed that the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents is a counter blast to the suit filed by the defendant-petitioners.
3. I have heard Sh. Amit Rawal, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners who has contended that both the courts below have committed grave irregularity by relegating the defendant-petitioners to the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller, for making an application if he wants to effect any repair or any alternation. According to the learned counsel for while wash of the shop, Section 12 of the East Punjab (Urban Rent Restriction) Act, 1949 (for brevity, the Act’) would not be attracted because that provision would apply only if the tenant has to effect some changes other than structural alterations. Learned counsel has further submitted that by issuing the ad interim stay order both the courts below have virtually decreed the suit because this is the main relief sought in the suit.
4. I have thoughtfully considered the submissions of the learned counsel and regret my inability to accept the same because the injunction which has been granted is confined to making any structural addition or alternations and from changing the existing position or effecting any major repair in the shop illegally or forcibly without the prior consent of the landlord or without the prior permission of the Rent Controller. The types of repair, addition and structural alterations stipulated in the injunction order are covered by Section 12 of the Act. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with the order passed by both the Courts below in so far as the defendant has been asked to approach the Rent Controller for necessary permission or seek consent of the landlord i.e. plaintiff-respondents. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the first submission of the learned counsel.
5. The second submission of the learned counsel that the injunction order passed by both the courts below would amount to decreeing the suit, does not require any serious
consideration because the type of injunction granted by both the courts below is aimed at protecting the existing position of the disputed shop. No mandatory directions have been issued. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by both the courts below which may warrant interference of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code. The revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. For the reasons recorded above, this revision petition fails and is dismissed.