( 1 ) THIS revision has been filed by Bhagwant Singh and Harbel Singh, defendant Nos. 2 and 3, while another revision (Civil Revision No. 457 of 1985) has been filed by Krishan Lal, defendant No. 1. Both the revisions challenge the judgment and order dated 1st December, 1984 of the lower appellate court confirming the order of the trial court dated 14th November, 1983 restraining the defendants from forcibly and wrongfully dispossessing the plaintiff from almirah like shop and also from demolishing the front wall in which the said almirah is embedded till the disposal of the suit.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY these are the facts ; Mohan Lal, plaintiff/respondent No. I, on 6th April, 1983 filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossing him from the almirah shop and from demolishing the wall on which the me is fixed. The plaintiff has alleged that he is a tenant in a shop forming part of 89, Ghaffar Market, New Delhi, delineated in the site plan annexed with the plaint for the last over 25 years on a monthly rent of Rs. 100. 00. He has alleged that the property was allotted to Sajjan Singh and Mehboob Singh ; that he was inducted as tenant at Rs. 100. 00 per muonth by Mehboob Singh ; that he was carrying on his business under the name and style of Mohan Chappal Stores and he was assessed to Sales-tax ; that he obtained separate electric connection in his own name and later on the plaintiff closed his chappal business and started business of artificial jewellery. He alleges that the shop comprises of an almirah embedded in the wall with the remaining super-structure on the Municipal land which was on Tehbazari basis in the name of Mehboob Singh; that during emergency period the Tehbazari rights were abolished and the super-structure on Municipal land was demolished by the concerned authorities leaving only an almirah on the wall ; that he continued to pay Rs. 100. 00 per month as rent to Mehboob Singh and after his death to his legal heirs; that defendant No. 1, in 1973, who was also a tenant of Mehboob Singh, purchased a portion of the shop from the legal heirs of Mehboob Singh and thereafter he started paying rent to defendant No. I, that he appeared as a witness in the suit : Krishan Lal v. Harbel Singh etc. filed in 1976 in the High Court of Delhi; that be was summoned as a witness to depose that he was a tenant in the premises at Rs. 100. 00 per month and his testimony was recorded. The plaintiff has further alleged that the defendants are planning to demolish the entire wall on which the almirah shop of the plaintiff is fixed so that defendant No. 2 would have opening of hi shop on the main road itself. The plaintiff thus prayed for a permanent injunction. Alongwith the suit he filed an application for temporary injunction.

( 3 ) KRISHAN Lal, defendant No. 1, admits that during emergency the structure on the Municipal land was removed by the concerned authorities; he denies that there was any almirah embedded in the wall; that he purchased a portion of the said property from the legal representatives of Mehboob Singh ; he denies that the plaintiff became tenant under him at Rs. 100. 00 per month.

( 4 ) DEFENDANT Nos. 2 and 3 in their written statement have pleaded that plaintiff was only a licensee on the Municipal land outside the shop in question and after the revocation of the licence, he has no right to remain on the Municipal land and he can be thrown out by permissible help ; that Sajjan Singh and Mehboob Singh were carrying on business in separate portions of the shop. It is denied that the plaintiff was inducted as tenant at Rs. 100. 00 per month by Mehboob Singh in any portion of shop No. 89. Ghaffar Market, New Delhi. It is denied that any electric connection was obtained by the plaintiff in his own name. Existence of almirah embedded in the wall is denied. It is further alleged that the plaintiff has not paid any rent to them ; that the plaintiff was a tenant only on the Tehbaza