( 1 ) THE petitioner has impugned the orders of the learned Additional District judge dated 13. 11. 2000and the learned Sub-Judge dated 16. 1. 1989 in terms where of the prayer of the petitioner for grant of interim injunction was declined.

( 2 ) THE petitioner had filed the suit for injunction restraining the respondent from dispossessing the peti tioner except in accordance with law and along with the suit an application for interim relief was filed. The factual matrix is limited inasmuch as one Shri Harbans Lal Samrat who was granted lease hold rights in pursuance to the lease deed dated 27th February, 1963 in respect of A-74, Outram lines, Kingsway Camp measuring 52 square yards at a concessional price since the petitioner was a refugee. The petitioners are the legal heirs of Shri Harbans Lal who has since expired. Shri Harbans Lal was running a restaurant under the name of samrat restaurant after obtaining a licence from the Municipal Corporation of delhi.

( 3 ) THE suit was filed by the petitioners who were apprehensive of the threatened action of DDA for demolition of the property and to dispossess the petitioners.

( 4 ) THE petitioners failed to produce the lease deed before the Trial Court but the same was produced by the respondent. It would be relevant to re-produce two of the material terms of the lease deed which are para I (vi) and (xii ). " (vi) not without the written conent of the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, to carry on or permit to be carried on, on the said land and buildings erected thereon during the said lease any trade or business whatsoever or the same or permit the same to be used for any purpose other than that of a *single storeyed building consisting of one residential flat or a *double storeyed building consisting of one or two residential flates in all with a barsati on top, as may be approved for the locality or as provided in the building already erected on the said land; (xii) if during the period of the lease the premises are required for a public purpose or for any administrative purpose by the lessor, the lessor shall at the expiry of a notice of fifteen days to the effect that the said premises are required for such purpose to be served upon the Lessee by an officer appointed by the Lessor in this behalf, be at liberty to take possession of the land together with all buildings, structures and appurtenances. The Lessee shall be entitled to compensation in respect of the land, buildings and structures. The compensation payable under this clause shall, in case of dispute be determined by the Lessor or by such officer as he may appoint for the purpose, as nearly as may be, in accordance, with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act or regulation for the time being in force relating to the same and the decision of the Lessor or such officer shall be final and conclusive. "

( 5 ) THE contention of the petitioner before the Trial Court was that the property was made for residential-cum-commercial use. Inview of the terms of the lease deed that the property is meant only for residential use, both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the user of the premises is for residential purpose. I find no infirmity with the said finding of the Trial Court.

( 6 ) IT is also relevant to note that the respondent has been issuing notice to the petitioners from time to time for misuser of the property but the same has been continued. It is however, not disputed that the lease of the premises has not been cancelled for misuser or violation of Clause (vi) of the lease deed.

( 7 ) IT is apparent from the impugned orders that the property of the petitioners was sought to be taken for a scheme to re-develop the area in question by the respondent and allotment was made to the petitioner of plot No. 1760, measuring 160 square yards under the Kingsway Re-development Scheme. The petitioners, however, are not willing to accept the alternative plot claiming that the same is meant for residential