Harish Chandra, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision petition under Section 1 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order dated 22nd February, 1980 of Shri K. S. Gupta, Additional Distt. Judge, Delhi, dismissing an appeal against the order of Shri O. P. Gonge, Sub-Juage 1st Class, Delhi dated 6th September, 1979 whereby he granted an interim injunction restraining the petitioners from obstructing the respondents in the construction of the first-floor of house No. S-231, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi, till the disposal of the Suit.

( 2 ) IN view of the extremely limited scope of judicial review under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure it does not appear necessary to go into the details of facts leading to the passing of the impugned order. Even so, briefly recapitulated, the facts are as under:

( 3 ) SHRIMATI Sulakshna Malhan, the first respondent before me, entered into a lease-deed with Shri Shashi K. apur, the petitioner before me, in September or October 1976 in respect of premises S-231, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi at a rent of Rs. 1200. 00 per month. Soon thereafter, Shrimati Malhan gifted away to her sister Mrs. Mohini Puri half of the property. Mrs. Mohini Puri who lost her husband desired to settle down in Delhi with her minor son and, therefore, planned to construct the first-floor of the aforesaid premises. Petitioner No. 2 helped her in the transfer of rights in respect of the land on which the premises were situated. She went ahead with the necessary prerequirements of undertaking such construction like drawing up and sanction of plans etc. and proceeded to begin actual construction.- When building material came to be stored at the site, i. e. , on the land appartaining to the building on S-231) Panchsheel Park, much to the surprise of the respondents petitioner No. 1 objected to the construction activity and obstructed the same.

( 4 ) THEREUPON, Shrimati Sulakshna Malhan, Shrimati Mohini Puri and their mother, Shrimati Shanti Devi as plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the tenant Shri Shashi Kapur. Bakshi Shiv Charan Singh was also impleaded as defendant No. 2. It was averred in the plaint that the parties are relatives and have had cordial relations. Shrimati Mohini Puri, plaintiff No. 2 and now co-owner of half undefined portion of the premises was proceeding with the construction of the first floor at the premises but defendant No. 1 the tenant had started causing hindrance and obstruction in the work of construction. It was pleaded that it was all along known and clear to the defendants that it was proposed to construct the first floor and the defendants had all along been helpful in carrying out this intention but had suddenly changed their attitude and had started the impugned obstruction. It was further pleaded that in terms of the sanction construction was required to be completed within one year of the date of sanction and hence the urgency so that irreparable harm is not caused. On these and other averments, it was prayed that the defendants be permanently restrained from interfering with the carrying out of construction.

( 5 ) ALONGWITH the plaint, the plaintiffs filed an application for an interim injunction.

( 6 ) THE suit and the application were strongly opposed. In opposition to the prayer for the grant of an interim injunction the case of the defendants was:

(A) by clause 7 of the lease-deed, the right to carry out structural additions or alterations including constructing a third bed-room had been given to the tenant and the plaintiff s had, therefore, no right to build on the first floor till the expiry of the period of the lease, i. e. 11th September, 1981.

(B) if the plaintiffs are allowed to carry out the proposed construction, it will cause inconvenience to the defendant No. 1; and

(C) the right to possession of the premises given to a tenant includes the right to possession over the land appurtenant to the house and the owner cannot, therefore, use it for storing materia

Click Here to Read the rest of this document