Once adequate and comprehensive remedy by way of appeal is available, High Court will not exercise its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The above revisions are filed against the order dismissing the revision petitioner/plaintiffs applications in I.A.Nos.I.A.Nos. 665 and 667 of 2006 in O.S.Nos.169 and 170 of 2006 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Uthagamandalam, filed by him for grant of interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from putting up any illegal and unauthorised construction on his property.

.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

.The revision petitioner Yunus Sait is the owner of the residential cum non-residential premises of the schedule mentioned suit property, which is known as Adama Buildings. He filed two suits one against T.Joseph in O.S.No:169 of 2006 and another in O.S.No:170 of 2006 as against one Narayana Das Samtani. Both of them are admittedly the tenants of the buildings, which consists of ground and first floor. It is also the admitted case of the parties that premises was rented out for residential as well as commercial purposes. It is also not in dispute that there was a fire accident and according to the revision petitioner/plaintiff, the petition premises was entirely burnt and destroyed in the said fire accident. According to him, the respondents/defendants attempted to put up illegal and unauthorised construction in the suit premises without the permission or concurrence of the landlord/plaintiff which necessitated him to file the two suits against them for a perpetual injunction restraining them or their men from putting up any construction in the suit property.

3. Pending the said Original Suits, the revision petitioner/plaintiff also filed I.A.Nos:665 and 667 of 2006 for interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants respectively from putting up any illegal and unauthorised construction without his permission pending the said two suits. However, the learned District Munsif, Udhagamandalam, on a consideration of the pleadings and the submissions made by the respective counsels, dismissed both the Interlocutory Applications. Aggrieved of the same, the present two CRPs are filed before this court.

.4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff contended that at the most the defendants as tenants are entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 14(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act only for effecting repairs, despite notice, that too cannot be carried out without the building being vacated by them. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the trial court is wrong in holding that the tenant is living in the ground floor of the tenanted portion and he may be permitted to carry out minor repairs so as to make it habitable for his family to live in the said premises. The trial court also wrong in holding that replacing the damaged tin sheets or plastering of burnt area in the walls will not amount to putting up new structures and also in holding that the building is intact after the fire accident took place. Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act would only provides that if a landlord fails to make necessary repairs to the building within a reasonable time after notice is given then the tenant is entitled to make repairs and to have repairs effected and carried on by the landlord. In the event of the landlord fails or neglects to effect such repairs, it is always open to the Rent Controller to pass appropriate orders after due notice to the landlord, thereby allowing the tenant to effect repairs at his cost and deduct the expenses incurred thereof from and out of the rental payable by him. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has not given any permission to carry out any repairs to the premises since the building has been totally erased and damaged in the fire accident.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants contended that the revision petitions are not maintainable at all since only appeals would lie with the Appellate Court as ag