Section 38 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act does not apply to cases where the landlord obstructs the tenant's enjoyment of the tenanted premises by placing obstacles in front of the entrance door.

R.S. Garg, J.

1. M/s Usha International Ltd. as proprietor of Central India Sales Corporation, have tiled the suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the right of the plaintiff of enjoyment of the their tenanted premises and a decree against the defendants directing them to remove the obstacles put by them in front of the entrance door of the tenanted premises in the form of tables, furnitures and utensils. In the suit, an application under Order 39, Rule 1-2 C.P.C. was also filed seeking a temporary injunction that the defendants be restrained from creating any obstacles in the enjoyment for the plaintiffs tenanted premises and a mandatory injunction directing them to remove the obstacles put by them in front of the entrance door of the tenanted premises.

2. The defendants contested the suit and opposed the application, inter alia, pleading that the plaintiff has not stated as to when they have become proprietor of Central India Sales Corporation. The plaintiff M/s Usha International Ltd. is not the tenant, the plaintiff has no right to institute the suit and the defendants did not let out the Chabutra outside the shop, they have not caused any interference in the right of plaintiffs enjoyment of the property and they have only kept their goods etc. On the said Chabutra, which is not causing any interference with the right of the plaintiff. Both the parties have filed various documents and photographs in support of their contentions and so supported their allegations by affidavits. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties, by its order dated 22.3.1993 found a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and also found that the defendants were causing hindrance in the plaintiffs right of enjoyment. Without any authority, they have kept the goods on the said Chabutra. The trial Court granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Being dis-satisfied by the said order, the defendants took up the matter in appeal. The appellate Court by its order dated 17.2.1995 passed in M.A. No. 16/93, set aside the order passed by the trial Court, holding that the plaintiffs have no prima facie case, the balance of convenience was in favour of the defendants. It also found that the reliefs claimed in the suit would fall within the purview of section 38 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, therefore, the civil Court would ' have no jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter. Being dissatisfied by the said order, the plaintiff have preferred this revision petition.

3. Shri Sapre and Shri Vegad learned counsel for the applicant contended that the appellate Court was not justified in observing that M/s Usha International Ltd. was not the tenant and had no right to institute the suit. They also submit that the photographs and the letters, documents/agreements would clearly show that the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff and the provisions of section 3X of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act are not applicable to a situation like the present. They submit that the appellate Court was unjustified in interfering with the order passed by the trial Court. On the other hand, Shri N.K. Patel learned counsel for the non-applicants states that as the plaintiff have not pleaded as to nor M/s Usha International Ltd, became the tenant, of the defendants, it would have no right to institute the suit. The defendants arc earning their livelihood by keeping their goods on the Chabutra and occupying a small space beyond public road, therefore, the balance of convenience would be in favour of the person who is earning his livelihood and the Civil Court would have no jurisdiction in view of section 38 of the Act.

4. I have heard the parties at length and have perused the records of the two Courts.

5. Section 38 of the Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) reads as under:

38. Cutting off or withholding essential supply of service- (1) No landl