JUDGMENT 1. - This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115, C.P.C. by the defendant-petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24-5-94 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Bikaner in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 19/93 thereby setting aside the order appealed against dated 19- 4-91 passed by the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Bikaner in Civil Misc. Case No. 72/91 whereby prayer for issuing 'temporary injunction by the plaintiff-non- petitioner was rejected. 2. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the present petition may be summarised as below : 3. The plaintiff-non-petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant-petitioner in the trial Court with the averments that the suit premises described as Shop No. 8. Indira Bazar, P.B.M. Hospital, Bikaner (to be described as suit premises hereinafter), was taken on monthly rent of Rs. 200/- from the defendant petitioner and he was regularly paying rent up to December, 1989 but, subsequently, because of some ulterior consideration, the defendant-landlord stopped accepting rent of the premises even after remitting the same through money orders. On 19-3-91, the defendant- landlord engaged two or three 'gundas' who threatened the plaintiff- tenant to either vacate the suit premises or else they further threatened that the plaintiff would be forcibly thrown out of the premises and the same would be forcibly vacated unless vacant possession was passed over to the defendant - landlord. Subsequently, while filing suit for permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendant - landlord from taking illegally and forcibly possession of the suit premises thereby restraining him from doing so without due process of law. Besides, an application for temporary injunction under O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2, read with Section 151, C.P.C. was also filed. On the request of the plaintiff, the trial Court also appointed the Court Commissioner for inspection of the suit premises and, accordingly, a detailed report was submitted that the plaintiff-tenant was in physical use and possession of the premises wherein he was running a hotel titled "New Shere Punjab Hotel". However, defendant- landlord denied any relationship of landlord and tenant between the contesting parties and further maintained that the suit itself was not maintainable. However, defendant- landlord denied any relationship of landlord and tenant between the contesting parties and further maintained that the suit itself was not maintainable. It was also pleaded that son of the plaintiff had started a partnership business in the suit premises along with the defendant but, subsequently, due to some differences about the accounts of the business, both of them fell apart but, however, the plaintiff carried on his business separately in another Shop No. 3 belonging to Sushil Kumar and a suit for eviction therefrom of the plaintiff was also pending separately in the Court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner. The learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner, vide her order dated 19-4-91, dismissed the application to issue temporary injunction as prayed for, holding that no case as such was made out in favour of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved, plaintiff-tenant preferred Civil Misc. Appeal No. 19/93 in the District Court , Bikaner which was accepted by the learned Addl. District Judge vide his order dated 24-5-94 and, while setting aside the order of dismissal of application for issue of temporary injunction passed by the trial Court, a temporary injunction was granted thereby restraining the defendant-landlord from interfering with the possession and business of the plaintiff-tenant being carried in the suit premises till disposal of the suit and, being aggrieved, this revision petition has been preferred. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the non-petitioner and also perused and considered the appellate order along with the order passed by the trial Court as well. 5. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the non-petitioner and also perused and considered the appellate order along with the order passed by the trial Court as well. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while relying on the deed of partnership dated 7-11-1989 alleged to have been entered into between Gyan Chand, son of the plaintiff as well as defendant, maintained that those partners alone started business in the suit premises but, subsequently, due to some differences, the plaintiff seized the opportunity to have illegally come into possession of the suit premises whereas the suit premises was never let-out to the plaintiff by the defendant- landlord and, accordingly, it has been throughout maintained that the suit premises, initially raised by the U.I.T., Bikaner, were leased out on long term basis to the defendant-landlord and that the plaintiff was carrying on his business in another shop belonging to Sushil Kumar and, in absence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and, in view of these circumstances, the learned trial Judge rightly refused to issue injunction order in favour of the plaintiff but, the learned appellate judge mis-appreciated the facts and circumstances and committed an illegality and material irregularity in setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the lower Court and instead having granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff which has resulted in causing irreparable injury to the defendant-landlord who has been deprived of his premises and its use. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioner has submitted that a Court Commissioner was appointed for site inspection and Shri Ved Prakash Shukla, Advocate, who was appointed as Court Commissioner, vide his report dated 2-4-91 has clearly reported that the plaintiff was present at the suit premises wherein the said Hotel was being run and, similarly, furniture, cutlery, utensils, bedding etc. were lying therein and the plaintiff-non-petitioner was in exclusive use and possession of the suit premises whereat his another son Ramesh Kumar was preparing tea at the shop while the plaintiff himself was sitting on a cot placed in front of the gate of the hotel. 7. were lying therein and the plaintiff-non-petitioner was in exclusive use and possession of the suit premises whereat his another son Ramesh Kumar was preparing tea at the shop while the plaintiff himself was sitting on a cot placed in front of the gate of the hotel. 7. The learned counsel further submits that the learned trial Judge did not appreciate the fact of possession of the plaintiff and, accordingly, taking into consideration the disputed document of alleged deed of partnership alleged to have been entered into by Gyan Chand who is none but the son of the plaintiff himself and the defendant-landlord who are also alleged to have carried on their business for a short while in the suit premises itself, rejected the application of the plaintiff and instead the learned appellate Judge has rightly accepted application thereby allowing the application for grant of temporary injunction and the same does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. 8. I have given my considerate thought to the rival contentions raised by both the sides. 9. The plaintiff claims that he is the tenant of the defendant-landlord. However, the defendant does not deny ownership of the suit premises but, any how, he has seriously contested that he ever let-out the suit premises to the plaintiff-non-petitioner and that he had ever accepted rent from the plaintiff but, as evidenced from the report of the Court Commissioner, the plaintiff is in actual use and possession of the suit premises and he is running a hotel for catering in the same. The plaintiff also claims that he is in possession of the suit premises as tenant of the defendant-landlord and not otherwise. 10. However, looking to the nature of the dispute that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the contesting parties is under serious challenge and is also a bone of contention, but, besides, so far as temporary injunction is concerned, the plaintiff has prayed that during the pendency of the suit, he may not be illegally and forcibly evicted from the suit premises wherein he is running a hotel for catering during the pendency of the suit. The report of the Commissioner fully corroborates the version of the plaintiff that he is in use and occupation of the suit premises and also runs his hotel business. 11. The report of the Commissioner fully corroborates the version of the plaintiff that he is in use and occupation of the suit premises and also runs his hotel business. 11. In view of these circumstances, when the plaintiff-non-petitioner is in established use and possession of the suit premises and he had sought temporary injunction against the defendant thereby restraining the defendant from illegally and forcibly evicting him there from without having a resort to due process of law and, in these circumstances, the main purpose of such an interim order is to maintain status quo in respect of the disputed property till disposal of the suit and, therefore, in view of the serious dispute about the relationship of the parties, there being a prima facie case to be tried, so far as issue of a temporary injunction is concerned, the plaintiff-non-petitioner has been able to prima facie show that he is in exclusive use and possession of the suit property and, accordingly, till disposal of the suit itself, he has a right to maintain his possession and, consequently, seek protection against illegal and forcible dispossession from the suit premises. 12. Resultantly, a prima facie case for issue of temporary injunction, as was also fully supported by the report of the site Commissioner, was made out and, besides a prima facie case, any party seeking temporary injunction is further required to show that the balance of convenience as well as the fact of causing irreparable injury, in case no temporary injunction was granted, were in favour of the plaintiff. 13. In the present case, in the aforesaid circumstances, when a prima facie case is established in favour of the plaintiff-non- petitioner, so far as the factor, balance of convenience is concerned, since the plaintiff- non-petitioner is in established possession of the suit premises whereat he is also running his hotel business as a hotelier and, in case no temporary injunction is granted as prayed for, the defendant-petitioner, as is apprehended by the plaintiff-non-petitioner, by resorting to forcible ejection of the plaintiff- petitioner there from, would ruin the business of the plaintiff-non-petitioner, whereas, the defendant-landlord himself is not carrying on any business nor he is having any use of the suit premises. Besides, as far as the factor, resulting in an irreparable injury to either party, in the aforesaid circumstances, the plaintiff- non-petitioner is, in all probabilities, bound to suffer irreparable injury in case he is ousted from the possession of the suit premises and is not allowed to run his hotel business in the suit premises till disposal of the suit and, therefore, all the necessary three factors for issue of temporary injunction are fully established in favour of the plaintiff-non- petitioner, the learned trial Judge seriously erred thereby failed to exercise her jurisdiction ,by way of disallowing prayer for issuing temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff and, in the aforesaid circumstances, the learned appellate Judge, while appreciating all these circumstances, did not commit any illegality or material irregularity in setting aside the order of the trial Court and, instead, granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff-non-petitioner. 14. As regards the dispute regarding entering into any partnership and consequential execution of a partnership deed in the aforesaid circumstances, the same does not have any bearing on the temporary injunction granted by the appellate Court and the trial Court shall be at liberty to try the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as well and, after a full-fledged trial of the suit, any finding about the relationship of the landlord and the tenant can be given and, at present, this objection about the maintainability of the suit itself is premature and does not have any effect on the impugned order of the appellate Court. 15. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 16. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed and the impugned appellate order dated 24- 5-94 is affirmed. However, looking to the nature of the dispute, it is directed that the trial Court shall dispose of the suit finally within one year from the date of this order and, in no case, any adjournment to either party shall be granted for a period extending beyond one month. No order as to costs. 17. This Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.Petition dismissed. *******