JUDGMENT 1. - In a suit filed by the non petitioner, the trial court has granted a mandatory injunction to the effect that the petitioner shall open her lock on the main gate and allow the plaintiff to carry on the work of school in the disputed premises, and further that she should not restrain the employees etc. of the school from doing their work in the premises. This order has been confirmed in appeal by the Additional Civil Judge No 1 Bharatpur by his order dated 25-9-1987. Against this order this revision has been filed. The non-petitioner has appeared without being served and at the same time has given an undertaking that the locks shall not be opened till this matter is finally decided. 2. It is necessary to mention the facts of this case. The dispute is about the house belonging to the petitioner left to her by her father Babu Gokulji Verma, who is said to be a renowened freedom fighter of Rajasthan. The non- petitioner plaintiff instituted a suit for mandatory injunction with the allegations that the property in dispute was taken on rent of Rs. 151-/- per month from the petitioner for purpose of running the school in whose name the suit has been instituted. It was mentioned that at the time of taking the property on rent from 1-7-1987, it was agreed that the plaintiff would run its school in this building and that if the defendant required the property she would give a notice of one month to get the premises vacated. but she would get it vacated only at the end of the session. Similarly the plaintiff would also vacate by giving one month's notice and vacate at the end of the school session. It was alleged that the institution was paying the rent regularly and the school was running in this building. The suit which was filed on 2-9-1987 contained the allegation that on 1-9-1987 the petitioner put her lock on the main door of the house with the result that the school children could not go inside and teaching could not be done The petitioner at that time said that she was not interested in letting out the property and that she would not allow the school to run In this way she broke the contract for letting out the property and it became necessary to file the suit. Application for grant of mandatory injunction was filed along with the plaint, in which it was mentioned that the institution was facing great difficulty in absence of building which the petitioner has denied to them by putting her locks and that the students are left in the open air and would lose one year if proper arrangements are not made for their schooling. 3. On 3-9-1907 the Commissioner went to the site for inspection and he made a report that the defendant petitioner was standing on the roof of her house and when asked to open the door she refused to open it. She also refused to sign the report. The Commissioner gave a description of the surrounding property without being able to enter inside the house and make an inspection of the interior of the house. He reported that school teachers an children were standing outside and some of them were sitting on chabutri in front of the house. 4. The defendant petitioner filed a reply to the injunction application saying that she never let out any part of per house to the plaintiff petitioner for running the school and never handed over the premises to the school for this purpose. The conditions alleged to have been agreed at the time of tenancy were also denied. Her case is that the non-petitioner wants to take forcible ana illegal possession over her house by this story of taking the premises on rent. Her case is that some time before 15-3-1987, Govind Prasad, who is manager of the plaintiffs tiff school, came to her and requested her to give permission to celebrate the function of Independence Day in her house as there was not enough place for doing this in the house of Vijay Pahalvan where he was running the school. She was persuaded to do so by saying that the programme of Independence Day would be in memory of her late father who was a freedom fighter. This made her agree to permit Govind Prasad to organise the Independence Day function in her house and accordingly this function was celebrated and thereafter some benches were left in the premises on the pretext that it was a raining and they would be removed later. This made her agree to permit Govind Prasad to organise the Independence Day function in her house and accordingly this function was celebrated and thereafter some benches were left in the premises on the pretext that it was a raining and they would be removed later. No one came to collect these benches and when the petitioner asked the non-petitioner to take them away, he started saying that for some time he should be permitted to run the school in this premises. Thereafter on 2.9.1987 he even tried to forcibly enter into the house upon which the petitioner visited the S.P. of the place and even made a written report at the police station. As Govind Prasad agreed not to repeat such activities, the petitioner agreed not to press her application further. 5. It was on these pleadings of the parties that the matter of granting mandatory injunction during the pendency of the suit came before the trial court. The munsif Bharatpur while dealing with the application observed that the material on record was the affidavit of the petitioner as well as of the non-petitioner, photographs of 15.8.1987 and 1-9-1987 and the fact that the benches of the non-petitioner are kept in the premises. Besides this the fact that function of 15.8.1987 was celebrated in this house was taken to be evidence of possession of the non-petitioner. Considering this fact the affidavit of Govind Prasad was given preference over the affidavit of present petitioner, and it was believed that the non-petitioner was running the school in this building from 1.7.1987. The other ingredients necessary for grant to injunctions were also held to be in favour of the non-petitioner and injunction as stated above was granted. 6. When the matter was taken up by the petitioner before the lower appellate court it referred to the affidavits of Govind Prasad. Ummed Singh and Chhotelal and the report of the Commissioner and the two photographs and they were taken to be material in making out a prima facie case in favour of the non-petitioner. It was also considered that the present petitioner bad given her affidavit only which was not supported by the affidavits of other persons. Ummed Singh and Chhotelal and the report of the Commissioner and the two photographs and they were taken to be material in making out a prima facie case in favour of the non-petitioner. It was also considered that the present petitioner bad given her affidavit only which was not supported by the affidavits of other persons. It was observed that when the plaintiff did not remove his furniture after the function of 15.9.1987 then the present petitioner should have taken recourse to proceedings before the courts or before the police in order to get that furniture removed. It was observed that tenancy could be created in absence of a written rent note also and the documentary evidence in the cases was sufficient to make a prima facie case in favour of the non petitioner. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner is aware of the fact that two courts have given a finding against him and his task is difficult but at the same time he has made efforts to show that the courts below have proceeded on the basis of wrong assumption and on the basis of material which cannot be said to make out a prima facie case to show that he is a tenant in the disputed premises. According to him when the matter was declared by the trial court there was an affidavit of only the petitioner and nor.-petitioner on record and two other affidavits were inserted subsequent to the hearing of the arguments on 9.9.1997. According to him if the petitioner had known about these affidavits she would have also submitted affidavits of other persons. However, it is contended that it is not the quantity of evidence which has to be appreciated. Both the courts below have emphasised that there are two photographs one of 15.8.1987 which shows that the function is being celebrated inside the house and the other photograph is of 1.9.1987 showing that the front door was locked and the student as well as the teachers were left standing out side This according to both the courts by low is prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff that the school was running in the disputed premises. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the photographs as well as Commissioner's Report do not convey that the school was a tenant in this property. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the photographs as well as Commissioner's Report do not convey that the school was a tenant in this property. It is argued that the plaintiff in this case is an institution which ought to have a written rent note about the tenancy and should also have record about the payment of some but with receipt of the same but no such thing has been produced. It is argued that the function of 15.8.1987 being celebrated in this house is an admitted position and this would not amount to a prima facie case of the school being a tenant in the premises 8. A number of authorities have been relied upon in order to argue that in a suit for injunction possession over the property cannot be delivered and secondly that at the time of passing a temporary injunction a situation which does not exist on the date of the suit cannot be brought into existence. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the non-petitioner is a trespasser, who is not in possession and an interim order cannot be made in his favour which amounts to delivery of the possession of the property. All these matters go to the question of jurisdiction of the court and as such when the courts below have exercised the jurisdiction vested in them in an illegal manner then this court should interfere in this revision and reverse those orders. 9. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner contended that in the face of the finding by the courts that the school was being run in this house, this court cannot arrive at a different finding of fact and cannot interfere in revision and that it cannot be said that the provisions of section 115 Civil Procedure Code are applicable. It is contended that the furniture of the non-petitioner is lying in the house which shows chat he is still in possession and has been ousted by putting locks over the main gate and in the rooms and as such should be allowed to enter the house and run the school. It is contended that absence of rent note cannot be taken to be the last word, there are other circumstances to show that the non-petitioner was running its school in this building. This has been stated by a number of persons in their affidavits. It is contended that absence of rent note cannot be taken to be the last word, there are other circumstances to show that the non-petitioner was running its school in this building. This has been stated by a number of persons in their affidavits. It has also been contended that the petitioner should have opened the locks for the Commissioner to enter into the premises to inspect the same and when she did not do so the Commissioner had no choice and inspected from out side only. Again a number of decisions have been cited in order to show that mandatory injunction can be granted and the order passed by the courts below is in accordance with law. 10. It do not consider it necessary to look into the various decisions cited by the parties on the question of jurisdiction of the court to issue mandatory injunction, because if in a particular case the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code do not provide for the same then the same can be done under inherent powers It cannot be said that there is complete ban on the powers of the court to grant mandatory injunction during the pendency of the case. It is in the facts and circumstances of each case in which such orders can be passed. 11. In the present case in order to made out a prima facie case that the school was a tenant in the premises and work of teaching was done in these premises, the courts below have mainly relied upon the two photographs and the report of the Commissioner. In one of the two photographs produced by the non-petitioner, it can be seen that the function of 15.8.1987 is being celebrated and some of the teachers are standing and students are sitting and there is a banner showing that the function is being celebrated As far as this photograph goes it is admitted by the present petitioner that the function on 1.9.1987 was celebrated in her house. This photograph by itself would not make out a prima facie case in favour of the non-petitioner that regular school was being held in this building. This photograph by itself would not make out a prima facie case in favour of the non-petitioner that regular school was being held in this building. In the second photograph which is of 1.9.1987 (and even if it is accepted on its face value) the school children and teachers are shown to be standing outside as there is a lock on the main door. This position is also admitted by the present petitioner. Merely because students and teachers are standing out side the premises and have posed for the photograph it would not go to show that the school was regularly run in this premises Similarly the report of the Commissioner merely says about locking of door and cannot on said to be of any help to the non-petitioner in establishing the running of school in this premises. The non-petitioner has not to show something which is admitted by the defendant in the case but has no show something which would support the case as stated in the plaint and application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code and section 151 Civil Procedure Code. What the plaintiff in the present case has to show is that the school was run in the premises from l.7.1987 after taking it on rent and not merely that the function of Independence Day was celebrated in this school, Both the courts below have referred to the Commissioner's report and two photographs in order to hold that there is a facie prima case in favour of the non-petitioner but in doing so they have to consider the effect of these documents. The courts below in placing reliance on these documents for purpose of making out a prima facie case in favour of the non-petitioner have failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them. Production of a document by itself is not conclusive of any result. This is to be found out from the contents of the document. In this case when the petitioner has admitted that the function of Independence Day was celebrated in her house with her permission then there ought to be something more besides this celebration in order to show that the school was being run in this premises. The only evidence which remains in favour of the non-petitioner is that a few benches are lying in the premises However this would not go to show running of school. The only evidence which remains in favour of the non-petitioner is that a few benches are lying in the premises However this would not go to show running of school. Running of school requires something more than furniture alone. The furniture should also be of a type for which it can be said that it is required in a school like blackboard etc. Had there been such items in the premises, the matter would have been different. If the premises were locked suddenly on 1.9.1987 then items like papers and registers etc. of the non petitioner should have been locked inside, but for this the plaintiff has not made any allegation. It may be said that in the plaint the non-petitioner has not even stated how many rooms were let out to him in which he was running the school and it has not been pleaded that these premises were locked by the school authorities. Absence of a rent note and some documentary proof about the payment of rent are certainly circumstances against the non-petitioner while discussing the prima facie case in his favour. 12. Both the courts below have merely referred to documents for purpose of making out a prima facie case without in any way considering as to what those documents convey and mean and have therefore failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them and this jurisdictional error deserves to be corrected in this revision. There is no prima facie case in favour of the non-petitioner on the basis of the documents produced by him specially when the non-petitioner is an institution which has to maintain record. The affidavits of some persons would not by themselves be a substitute for the type of evidence which is required for making out a prima facie case. 13. This revision is therefore accepted and the orders of learned Munsif Pharatpur as well as Additional Civil Judge Bharatpur No. 1 are set and and the application for grant of mandatory injunction is dismissed.Revision accepted. *******