SWATANTER KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) TWO companies M/s. M. G. Builders and Company Private Ltd. and M/s. Nippnn Construction (P) Ltd. , duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 with their registered office at 105, X-21, Loha Mandi, Naraina, New Delhi and H-1, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi filed a suit for possession, declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction against shdes Raj Arora, respondent in the present appeal. The suit was instituted on the facts that appellant No. 1 is the perpetual lessee of property known as plot No. 2 community Centre. Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi and he had constructed a multi-storeyed Commercial Complex over the said plot. Similarly, appellant No. 2 was the owner of the adjacent Plot No. 1 and he had also constructed a multistoreyed building on that plot. The respondent is the perpetual lessee of plot No. 5 and had also constructed a multi-storeyed commercial complex over the said plot. The appellants have approached the defendant for providing them space and facilities in his building at plot No. 5 for installation of transformer/electric substation for electrification of their respective buildings. The agreements dated 16/10/1995 and 30/10/1995 were executed between the parties and a consideration of Rs. 9 lacs each was paid by the appellants to the defendant at the time of entering into the agreements for installation of electric sub-station. The respondent had also written to Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking at the relevant time that he has no objection for installation of electric sub-station. An area of nearly 800 square feet situated at the ground floor of the said building was handed over to DESU. After delivering the possession, somewhere in January, 2006, the defendant illegally and mala fidely, trespassed into the said portion and put up two shutters and giving the shape of two shops, the illegal construction was raised. Photographs of such illegal construction are annexed to the plaint. The grievance of the plaintiffs was that the area for which they had already paid consideration was a common area and possession of which was handed over to DESU, had been illegally and unauthorisedly trespassed into by the defendant and he was liable to remove the constructions and restore the possession in terms of the agreements between the parties. Thus, the appellants prayed before the Trial Court for the relief of possession and mandatory injunction as well as prohibition.

( 2 ) ALONG with the suit an application underorder 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for ad interim injunction was also filed. The suit as well as the application for interim prayer was contested by the respondents. In the written statement the defendant took a preliminary objection that the suit jointly filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable and that Delhi Vidyut Board had not been joined as a party and, therefore, the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 rule 11, CPC. On merits, the execution of the agreement was not denied but it is stated that the authorities were reluctant to install the transformers in the building after Uphaar Tragedy in Delhi and the plaintiffs were not entitled to relief of possession.

( 3 ) THE application of the appellants for grant of interim injunction came up for hearing before the Trial Court. Vide its order dated 4. 4. 2006, the Trial Court not only dismissed the application for injunction but also dismissed the suit as not maintainable. As the suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 4. 4. 2006, the appellants have filed the present Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure before this Court.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the impugned judgment is contrary to the settled principles of law and is based upon improper appreciation of the facts on record. The learned Trial Court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff mainly for two reasons which are as under:"i am, thus