( 1 ) THIS application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the plaintiff with a prayer to restrain the defendants, their servants, employees etc. from raising any constructions and installing a Transmission Tower in the open space/terrace on the 7th Floor of Ansal chambers-II, 6, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi till the disposal of the suit.

( 2 ) THE facts relevant for the disposal of this application, briefly stated, are that the plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant No. 1, the owner/developer of Ansal chambers-II, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi and defendant no. 2, a Company holding a licence for providing cellular services in the territory of Delhi. The plaintiff, a registered partnership firm, has alleged that it had purchased two flats bearing No. 709, 709-A, 710 and 710-A from the defendant No. l vide Flat Buyers Agreement dated 20. 11. 1989 and since then, it is using the same for office purposes. It is stated that the said flats are situated on the terrace floor of the aforesaid property. The said flats were sanctioned/approved for storage but the same are being used for office purpose where the plaintiff s partner s and staff work and the clients also visit. According to the plaintiff, on 1. 7. 2002, some building activity was observed just outside in the open space in front of its flats and on enquiry, it was learnt that defendant No. l had entered into an agreement with defendant No. 2 and provided the open space to defendant No. 2 to construct and install a Transmission tower for cellular services and also construct two huge rooms for generator and control panel. It is averred that these two rooms are being constructed at a distance of less than two meters from his office space and foundations for electric pillars are being made at a distance of 1 or 1. 5 meters. These constructions are stated to be unauthorised, in violation of international guide-lines and a serious health hazard to the plaintiff and others on account of exposure of radiation, pulse micro waves and signals. It is also alleged that the plaintiff s egress and ingress to his premises is likely to be affected besides obstruction to the light and air.

( 3 ) THE defendant No. 2 filed a written statement and reply to the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC which have been adopted by defendant No. 1 also. The plaintiff has filed a replication in which certain additional pleas are raised. In terms of orders dated 24. 9. 2002, passed as per the statements of counsel for the defendants, the pleas raised in the replication may be considered for disposal of the present application.

( 4 ) THE defendant No. 2 in its written statement has pleaded that the plaintiff has neither any locus standi nor any legal right to restrain the defendants from using the open space/terrace on the seventh floor of the building in question. It is denied that the proposed structure would bloack passage or the flow of light and air to the plaintiff s premises which are being used by the plaintiff for office purpose unauthorisedly in view of the fact that the premises are meant to be used for storage only. It is also submitted that the proposed transmission Tower and structure fulfils all legal and statutory requirements and the defendants have applied for permission to the authorities concerned. It is stated that the proposed tower will be conforming to the standards prescribed by the Pollution Control Board and will be free from air and noise pollution and would not violate any statutory provision or guide-lines laid down by the authorities. The defendants submit that the transmission Tower is being constructed as the defendant no. 2 is a licencee for providing cellular services and the ex-parte injunction granted by the Court is causing serious financial loss to defendant No. 2. The defendants have entered into an agreement for the installation of the said