The grant of ad interim injunction is guided by three considerations: (i) that the plaintiff has a prima facie case; (ii) that he would suffer irreparable injury if ad interim injunction is declined; and (iii) that the balance of conveniences weighs in his favour.

Muni Lal Verma, J.

1. The lis pertains to House No. 20 located in Sector, 2-A at Chandigarh (hereinafter called the house) which is in possession of Shri Bhal Singh petitioner. Dr. Nazar Singh (Respondent No. 1) is its owner and Mrs. Dr. Nazar Singh is his wife. According to the petitioner, the house was let out to him in the year 1972 at monthly rental of Rs. 515/- by Dr. Nazar Singh and he had been in its possession as tenant under him since then It was on April 24, 1975, that the respondent alongwith their associates entered the house in absence of the petitioner and, made an attempt to raise construction of the second storey, on the roof of the house. The wife of the petitioner objected and she made report to the police on whose intervention the respondents and their associates retired. Once again on May 8, 1975 the respondents and their associates dismantled the water tank existing on the roof of the house and intermeddled with the other amenities available to him (the petitioner). Dr. Nazar Singh then wrote to him (the petitioner) that he would be commencing the construction of the second storey on May 17, 1975. Therefore, on May 16, 1975 the petitioner brought the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the respondent from illegally dispossessing or interfering with his possession of the house and from starting the construction of the second storey. It was averred that he (the petitioner) was in possession of the entire house including the roof of the ground floor and the stair-case as a tenant under Dr. Nazar Singh and the respondents had no right to interfere with the possession or to construct the second storey. Along with the suit the petitioner moved an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from dispossessing him or interfering with his possession of the house and from raising any construction on the roof of the house. The averments made in the said application were identical with the allegations stated in the plaint. An ex-parte ad interim injunction to that effect was granted but on an application moved by Dr. Nazar Singh the same was vacated and the ad-interim injunction was declined and the aforesaid application under Order XXXIX Rules I and 2 read with section 151 of Code was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the said result, the petitioner carried appeal which was dismissed by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Chandigarh (exercising enhanced Appellate Powers). Hence, the petitioner filed this revision petition in this court.

2. The facts, that Dr. Nazar Singh is owner of the house and its construction had been completed in or about the year 1964 when he took up an appointment with the Panjabi University, Patiala as Professor and Head of the Department of Chemistry and he retired on March 5, 1974 ; that it was in the year 1972 when he had let out the house to the petitioner at a monthly rental of Rs. 515/- and since then he (the petitioner) had been in its possession and earlier to the year 1972 it had also been let out, to tenants including Miss Chand, are admitted. It is not disputed that the stair-case has not been constructed inside the house and is so built in between the garage and kitchen that one can ascend on the roof of the ground floor without entering into the built portion of the house. The real controversy between the parties is as to whether or not the said stair-case and the roof of the house formed part of the demised premises. According to the petitioner, the said stair-case and the roof of the house were included in the demised premises. Dr. Nazar Singh pleaded that the said stair-case and the roof of the house had not been let out to the petitioner. Both the courts below finding force in the plea raised by Dr. Nazar Singh, felt that the petitioner had failed to make out a prima facie case and were of the opinion that he would not suf