The court's function and the extent of its powers while dealing with the question of the existence of a prima facie case for the purpose of granting interim protection are limited to determining if the material placed before the court would require investigation.

( 1 ) THE question that this petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure raises is as to the precise scope of the functions and the extent of powers of the Court when called upon to consider if the plaintiff has a prima facie case so as to entitle him to an interim protection and has arisen in the following circumstances:

( 2 ). Respondent No. 1 herein is the owner of the premises in dispute and had succeeded in hotly constesting proceedings in obtaining an order for the eviction of Goverdhan Lal Kapur, respondent No. 3 here in and father of the petitioner. The proceedings for the eviction of Goverdhan Lal Kapur culminated in an order made by the Supreme Court of India on 3rd November, 1972 dismissing his Petition for Special leave to Appeal against a judgment of this Court whereby his Second Appeal against the order of eviction was dismissed. The suit out of which this revision has arisen, was filed by the petitioner on 7th November. 1972 for a declaration that the petitioner was a tenant in respect of the premises in dispute under respondent No. 1 by virtue of a letter written by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner dated 24th September, 1970 by which the petitioner was accepted as a tenant by the said respondent in respect of the premises at a monthly rental of Rs. 200/. The petitioner further claimed that the petitioner had also made payment of rent to the said respondent and sought an injunction restraining the said respondent as also the father of the said respondent, their servants or agents from in any manner dispossessing the petitioner from the said premises in execution of the order of eviction obtained by the said respondent against the petitioner s father. The letter said to have been received by the petitioner from the said respondent was enclosed with the plaint.

( 3 ). With the plaint, the petitioner also filed an application for an ex-party ad-interim injunction restraining the said respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from the premises in dispute in execution of the said order on which an ex-party ad-interim injunction in the terms prayed for by the petitioner was issued by the trial Court in the first instance on 9th November, 1972 but the same was vacated after bearing respondent No. 1 by an order of the trial Court made on 21st December, 1972 which was upheld in appeal by an order made by the Addl. District Judge, Delhi on 27th March, 1973. The petitioner has challenged this order in the present revision.

( 4 ). The trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner did not have a prima facie case because the purported act of respondent No. 1 in creating a fresh tenancy in favour of the petitioner even while the procceedings for the eviction of the petitioner s father were pending, did not appear to the Court to be probable.

( 5 ). The first appellate Court affirmed the finding of the trial Court on the ground that the creation of fresh tenancy in favour of the petitioner did not appear to it to be probable in the circumstance of the case; that the petitioner did not make a claim of tenancy in his favour until the conclusion of the proceedings in the. Supreme Court although the petitioner claimed to have become a tenant as early as the year 1970 and that the petitioner did not produce any evidence to re-enforce petitioner s contention that the petitioner had paid rent to respondent No. 1.

( 6 ). The only question that was argued before me was as to the function and the extent of the power of the Court while dealing with the question as to the existence of a prima facie case for the purpose of granting interim protection and as to whether having regard to the principles enuncited for the purpose, the impugned orders suffered from any infirmity on account of an erroneous approach and it was not disputed that if the petitioner could be said to have a prima facie case, the balance of convenience and the equities would be in favour of the status quo of the property in dis