Mr. M. Jagannadha Rao, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS is a regular first appeal against thejudgment in the suit 1046/94 and IA 4435/94 dated 13. 5. 1994. The appellant is theplaintiff and claims to be the tenant of the respondent. The suit is laid for grant ofpermanent injunction restraining the defendant (respondent) from interfering withthe peaceful possession of the premises (i. e. First floor, Barsati portion) bearing No. 36-B, Malcha Marg, New Delhi, and for directing the defendant to allow access tothe electric fuse box, electric meters, water pump/motor as well as to the watermeters by giving duplicate key of the lock of the door of the rear verandah, accessto which is from the service lane, or in the alternative to permit the plaintiff to shiftthe electric fuse box, water booster pump and the electric and water meters to thefirst floor portion; for an injunction to defendant not to park his vehicles/cars infront of the stair case leading to the access to the premises of the plaintiff etc. ( 2 ). In other words, the plaint not only relates to the continuance of amenitieslike the electricity and water but the principal relief is that the plaintiff s possessionmust be protected. ( 3 ). The learned Single Judge referred to Section 45 of the Delhi Rent Controlact,1958 which deals with the restoration of essential supplies or services cut off bythe landlord and held that if the Rent Controller has power to restore the amenitiesafter they are cut-off, he has also power to prevent the landlord from cutting themoff. The learned Single Judge referred to Section 50 (1) of the Act which bars thejurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of certain matters which are within thepowers of the Rent Controller, viz. fixation of standard rent and eviction and "anyother matter which the controller is empowered by or under this Act to decide". Heheld that in view of Section 50 of the Rent Control Act, the Civil Court s jurisdictionis barred even in regard to restraining the landlord from cutting-off the amenities. The plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. (Admittedly, an eviction caseis pending before the Rent Controller ). The plaintiff-tenant has preferred this appeal. ( 4 ). Heheld that in view of Section 50 of the Rent Control Act, the Civil Court s jurisdictionis barred even in regard to restraining the landlord from cutting-off the amenities. The plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. (Admittedly, an eviction caseis pending before the Rent Controller ). The plaintiff-tenant has preferred this appeal. ( 4 ). It is true that the Civil Court does not, in view of the express provisions ofsection 50 ( 1 ) have jurisdiction in regard to certain matters within the preview of therent Controller. But, on the facts of this case and the relief claimed in the plaint, thepoint covers two aspects. One aspect concerns the relief of permanent injunctionfor protecting the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. The other aspect concerns therelief for restraining the landlord from cutting off electricity and water etc. ( 5 ). So far as the second aspect above mentioned is concerned, the question iswhether the Civil Court can grant injunction restraining the landlord from cuttingoff electricity, water etc. and whether such a power can be said to be impliedlyvested in the Rent Controller who has power, after disconnection, for restorationof the amenities. We do not think it necessary for us to decide this aspect. In fact,if the learned trial Judge is to be taken to have expressed any opinion in this behalf,we leave the question open for decision in the suit. We are doing so in view of whatwe propose to say on the first aspect referred to, namely, whether the Civil Courtcan be approached, even by a statutory tenant, for protection of his peacefulpossession. ( 6 ). On the first aspect, we have no doubt that it is open to a statutory tenant tomove a Civil Court for grant of permanent injunction to protect his possession. Thisis well settled law under Section 9 CPC. The Rent Controller has not been conferredwith any jurisdiction for passing orders in relation to protecting the peacefulpossession of those in possession of immovable property. The plaintiff has claimedspecifically for grant of permanent injunction for protection of his possession. Thesuit was certainly maintainable in the Civil Court so far as the said relief isconcerned and hence the plaint was not liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11cpc. ( 7 ). The plaintiff has claimedspecifically for grant of permanent injunction for protection of his possession. Thesuit was certainly maintainable in the Civil Court so far as the said relief isconcerned and hence the plaint was not liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11cpc. ( 7 ). The learned Single Judge ought not to have rejected the plaint whichcontains the relief regarding permanent injunction for protecting the peacefulpossession of the plaintiff. We, therefore, set aside the order and restore the plainton the file of this Court for continuation of the suit in accordance with law. This order will not amount to any expression of opinion on the merits of thiscase or on the merits of the eviction petition now pending in the Court of the Rent Controller. The appeal is allowed as stated above. No costs.