JUDGMENT 1. - Both these revision petitions arise out of the order dated, 13.3.92'passed by the Additional District Judge, Bundi, whereby, he has decided appeals No. 13/91 and 14/91 filed by the non-petitioners, Shakir Bhai and Taiyab Ali respectively against the orders dated, 26.7.91 of the Civil Judge, Bundi, whereby the learned trial court had accepted the applications filed by the petitioner, Maharaj Kumar Ranjeet Singh, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 respectively. Since, both the revision petitions have more or less similar facts and they arise out of a common order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, I deem it proper to dispose them of by a common order. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case arc that the petitioner filed a suits for eviction of the non-petitioner from the property which is in their possession as tenants of the petitioner. The petitioner also applied for permanent injunction against the non-petitioners with a prayer to direct the non-petitioners not to demolish or raise any construction in the rented premises, namely garage. Applications for temporary injunction were also filed by the petitioner alleging therein that the non-petitioners have demolished the roof of the garage and wall of the rented premises. Non-petitioners filed separate replies and contested the applications filed by the petitioner. 3. After hearing both the parties, learned Civil Judge passed an order of injunction dated. 26.7.91 and restrained the non-petitioners from making any construction without the permission of the petitioner landlord and to maintain status quo during the pendency of the civil suit. Against the order of the learned Civil Judge, the non-petitioners filed appeals before the Additional District Judge, Bundi and, as noted above, learned Additional District Judge has accepted the appeals vide his order dated, 13.3.92 and has permitted repairs of the garage and main gate. 4. In assailing the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Mrs. Kamla Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, has streneously argued that the non-petitioners are guilty of causing damage to the tenanted premises and, therefore, there was no justification, whatsoever, for grant of any order in their favour. He argued that both the non-petitioners were responsible for causing damage to the property and they had raised a concocted plea about damage to the property by rains. Mrs. He argued that both the non-petitioners were responsible for causing damage to the property and they had raised a concocted plea about damage to the property by rains. Mrs. Jain argued that the non-petitioners have never given any notice to the petitioner under section 20(2) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. In the absence of such notice, it must be presumed that the properties do not require any repairs and in fact, in order to create evidence in their favour, the non-petitioners have damaged the property. Mrs. Jain further argued that the learned lower appellate court has committed a serious error of jurisdiction in interfering with the order of injunction passed by the trial court, which had examined all the facts and then recorded a finding of fact that the prima facie case was in favour of the petitioner. There was no justification for permitting the non-petitioners to make any construction in the disputed property. Mrs. Jain argued that the order passed in favour of the non-petitioners will encourage the tenants to interfere with the rented premises by damaging it and then get court's protection for the purpose of reconstruction. 5. Shri K.K. Mehrish, learned counsel for the non-petitioners, on the other hand, submitted that learned lower appellate court has passed an impugned order after due application of mind. The order of learned lower appellate court was equitable and has not caused any grave injustice to the petitioner. He further argued that the non petitioners cannot be indirectly evicted from the rented premises during the pendency of the suit for eviction. He argued that if the repairs permitted by the learned Additional District Judge are not allowed to be carried out, the non-petitioners will be completely deprived of their right to use the property. Shri Mehrish further submitted that the non-petitioners will not claim the cost of the repairs carried out by them and, in fact, they have carried out substantial repairs under the orders of the lower appellate court. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and have also gone through the orders passed by both the courts. The learned lower appellate court has taken note of the fact that the non-petitioners were still in possession of the rented premises. He also took notice of the fact that roof of the rented premises had fallen down. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and have also gone through the orders passed by both the courts. The learned lower appellate court has taken note of the fact that the non-petitioners were still in possession of the rented premises. He also took notice of the fact that roof of the rented premises had fallen down. He also opined that the plea of the non-petitioners regarding the roof having fallen on account of it being in a dilapidated condition was not correct and that there was a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner. Learned Additional District Judge, has however, held that so far as the balance of convenience and irreparable injury are concerned, the same were not in favour of the petitioner. He proceeded to observed that, there is no evidence on record to show that the non-petitioners have themselves caused damage to the roof. This was an issue which deserved to be decided on the basis of the evidence which would be led by the parties. He further observed that till the non-petitioners are evicted from the rented premises, they had a right to live in the same. On the basis of these conclusions, he modified the order of the trial court, by which the learned trial court had given an order of injunction restraining the non-petitioners from carrying out any construction in the tenanted premises. The reasons assigned by the learned lower appellate court for passing an order for permitting the non-petitioners to carry out the repairs, cannot in any manner, be termed as perverse, arbitrary or capricious, not can it be said that the learned lower appellate court has ignored the settled principles of law. 7. Apart from the aforesaid findings of the learned lower appellate court, I am of the opinion that when the non-petitioners are in possession of the rented premises, they have a right to live in the rented premises and this right would include a right to live with safety and security. That is quite impossible if the roof of the rented premises is missing or the doors of the rented premises are removed or are not replaced/repaired after damage. It could not have been possible for the learned trial court to have over-looked this important and material aspect of the matter while passing an injunction order in favour of the petitioner. That is quite impossible if the roof of the rented premises is missing or the doors of the rented premises are removed or are not replaced/repaired after damage. It could not have been possible for the learned trial court to have over-looked this important and material aspect of the matter while passing an injunction order in favour of the petitioner. The order passed by the learned trial court would have indirectly resulted in the eviction of the non-petitioners and it is clear that they could be evicted only on the basis of a decree passed in the main suit. If the property was left without roof and door, the non-petitioners had absolutely no option but to vacate it, or alteast to remove their goods and abundon the use of the same for the purpose for which it was let out. The learned trial court had over looked a very material aspect of the case and had thus committed a serious illegality in exercise of its jurisdiction. By correcting that error, learned Additional District Judge has acted in accordance with law. His order does not suffer from any grave illegality nor can it be said that any injustice will be caused to the petitioner if the order of the lower appellate court is maintained. Rather injustice will be perpetuated on the non petitioners if that order is disturbed. 8. Apart from this, the learned counsel for the non-petitioners has very candidly and fairly stated that the non petitioners will bear the expenditure of repairs/construction and they will not claim any adjustment or refund from the petitioner in case the suit of the petitioner succeeds. 9. In view of the above, both the revision petitions fail and are dismissed subject to the observation that the non-petitioners will not claim any refund or adjustment of the expenditure which they have married or they may incur in the repairs/construction of the rec d premises in pursuance of the order of the learned Additional District Judge.Revision Dismissed . *******