Honble GODARA, J.–This revision petition under Section 115, Cr.P.C., has been filed against the appellate judgment and order dated 16.4.96 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Raisinghnagar in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 37/95, thereby accepting appeal against the order dated 9.10.95 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judl. Magistrate, First Class, Raisinghnagar whereby the application filed underthe provisions of O.39 Rr. 1 and 2 and Section 151, CPC for issuance of temporary injunction against the petitioner defendant was rejected. (2). Briefly stated, the facts, relevant for the disposal of the present petition, are that the plaintiff who is presently respondent in this petition, filed a civil suit in the lower court for permanent and mandatory injunctions pleading that the suit pre-mises, as described in the plaint itself, was of the ownership of the defendant, who is presently petitioner, and the demised premises consists of a shop and a verandah measuring 10 ft. x 15 ft. situated in front of the shop. In the rear portion of the demised shop, a portion measuring 10 ft. x 11 ft. is covered over with `ballies (wooden-logs). Adjoining to the rear wall of the demised premises, there is residential portion of the defendant landlord. The defendant, with an ulterior and malafide intention often commits mischief by discharging water on the rear wallof the shop which separates the premises of the landlord and the one so demised to the plaintiff. Some damage has been caused to the roof of the shop thereby creating some holes in the roof as a result of which water falls into demised premises of the plaintiff as a result of which it creates great hindrance and obstruction in smoothrunning of business by the plaintiff in the demised premises. Besides, the defendant has got disconnected the electricity connection of the demised premises. The defendant-landlord also previously filed a civil suit for eviction of the present plaintiff from the suit premises and the lower court decreed the suit of the defendant by awarding a decree for eviction of the plaintiff from the suit premises on7.8.82. The plaintiff tenant, being aggrieved by the decree of the lower court, preferred Civil Appeal No. 09/82 titled as Kishor Chand vs. Dunichand @ Dulichand in the court of Addl. The plaintiff tenant, being aggrieved by the decree of the lower court, preferred Civil Appeal No. 09/82 titled as Kishor Chand vs. Dunichand @ Dulichand in the court of Addl. District Judge, Raisinghnagar and the same was accepted on 10.8.82 thereby reversing the decree of eviction passed against the plaintiff tenant and the same was never challenged. The defendant having not been able to evictthe plaintiff in due course of law, has been devising ways and means to somehow force the plaintiff tenant to vacate the suit premises and, as a result, he has been creating mischief, as stated above. The tenanted premises were also not got repaired and kept in a tenantable, safe and secure condition as required by the provisions of Section 20 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction)Act, 1950 and, therefore, while seeking relief of issuance of permanent and mandatory injunctions, simultaneously, an application for issuance of temporary injunction, as above, was filed in the trial court. The trial Court, while disposing of aplication for temporary injunction vide its order dated 9.10.95, held that no relationship of a landlord and a tenant was established and, as a result, in absenceof contract or relationship of landlord and tenant between the litigating parties, no prima facie case has been made out in favour of the plaintiff and, consequently, holding that there did not arise any question of any irreparable injury resulting to the plaintiff and so that balance of convenience also, being not in favour of the plaintiff, the application was dismissed and, being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferredappeal in the court of Addl. District Judge, Raisinghnagar, as above, which was accepted by the learned trial Judge vide impugned judgment and order dated 16.4.96, thereby holding that a relationship of a tenant and a landlord between litigating parties was fully established and the contrary view taken by the learned trial Judge was erroneous. Consequently, a temporary injunction was issued againstthe defendant petitioner, thereby restraining him from causing any obstruction or hindrance in the repairing works to be carried out by the plaintiff- respondent. At the same time, the petitioner was injuncted to immediately restore the electricity connection to the demised suit premises, with a further direction not to cause any obstruction or hindrance either in the use and occupation of the suit premises bythe plaintiff-tenant as well as in the use of electricity. At the same time, the petitioner was injuncted to immediately restore the electricity connection to the demised suit premises, with a further direction not to cause any obstruction or hindrance either in the use and occupation of the suit premises bythe plaintiff-tenant as well as in the use of electricity. Alternatively, it was also ordered that in case of failure of the defendants landlord to get the electricity connection restored, the plaintiff-tenant was entitled to get the electricity connection restored in his own right. (3). Being aggrieved by the appellate judgment and order, the defendant-pe- titioner has preferred this revision petition. (4). I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent and have also perused and considered the legality, propriety and regularity of the same. (5). The learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned judgment and order, submitted that the plaintiff respondent was not, in fact, carrying on any business in the suit premises and he was in illegal and unauthorised possession of the premises. He further, in order to augment his arguments in this respect, initially, submitted that there did not exist any relationship of landlord andtenant in respect of the disputed premises to which the present suit and dispute relate and the contrary conclusion arrived at by the learned appellate Judge is contrary to facts and law. However, subsequently, at the fag-end of his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner waived his objection about the relationship of tenant and landlord between the litigating parties and the learned counsel didso in view of the fact that previously, as already mentioned above, the defendant himself instituted a suit against the plaintiff-respondent on the basis that the plaintiff was tenant of the defendant-petitioner and, as a result, the eviction from the tenanted shop was sought for and, after completion of the trial, the lower court passed a decree of eviction on the finding that the plaintiff, who was defendant inthe said suit, was tenant of the present defendant, being plaintiff in the previous suit and, consequently, the suit was decreed in favour of the present defendant which was, however, as is not disputed by the defendant as well, set aside in the appeal preferred before the court of Addl. District Judge, Raisinghnagar. District Judge, Raisinghnagar. As a result, the defendant is estopped from challenging the relationship of landlord and tenantbetween the defendant and the plaintiff. As a result, the learned appellate Judge does not appear to have committed any illegality or factual mistake while holding, setting aside the impugned finding of the trial court, that there was an established relationship of a tenant and a landlord between the plaintiff and the defendant in respect of the disputed premises. (6). The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the suit premises was in a most dilapidated condition and the same could not be repaired and the same requires reconstruction and, as a result, his further submission is that since the plaintiff-respondent was not carrying on any business in the disputed premises and, as a result, neither the petitioner could be forced to reconstruct thepremises nor he could be compelled to restore electricity connection after lapse of many years. The defendant petitioner is economically unsound and, as a result, the plaintiff-respondent is allegedly taking undue advantage of the poverty of the defendant and with an ulterior motive to hold over possession and occupation of the suit premises indefinitely without payment of rent of last about 15 years. Theplaintiff has brought a false suit thereby seeking a decree of issuance of permanent and mandatory injunctions against the defendant landlord to force him to reconstruct the suit premises and to get the electricity connection restored and, therefore, the order of dismissal of the application for issuance of temporary injunction moved by the plaintiff before the trial court was fully justified and proper and theappellate court was not justified to have interferred with the judicial discretion of the trial court thereby setting aside the order of dismissal and, consequently, granting relief by way of issuance of injunctions in the temporary and mandatory from thereby compelling the defendant to carry out the work of reconstruction of the shop and, alternatively, allowing the plaintiff himself to carry out the work ofreconstruction of the devised premises, not warranted at any cost and for restoration of the electricity connection, as above. Besides, it is also contended that the appellate court has granted all those reliefs which could not have otherwise been granted in absence of final decree, if any, to be passed in the main suit itself. (7). Besides, it is also contended that the appellate court has granted all those reliefs which could not have otherwise been granted in absence of final decree, if any, to be passed in the main suit itself. (7). The learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has seriously countered all these submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and, while supporting the impugned findings and order of the learned appellate Judge, submitted that, indisputably, as the learned counsel for the petitioner presently conceded, there was a relationship of a landlord and a tenant between the defendant and the plaintiff in respect of the disputed premises. Besides, after filing of the present appeal, this court was pleased to have passed an order on 17.5.96 thereby directing the trial court to appoint a Commissioner for site inspection with a direction to carry out inspection of the suit premises regarding the condition of the same and to submit a factual report about the repairs required to be carried out for making thesuit premises habitable and, consequently, the Civil Judge (S.D.) Raisinghnagar appointed Shri Nakshtra Pal Singh, Advocate, as a Site-surveyor Commissioner to carry out the inspection and to submit his report. The Commissioner, so appointed, through the trial court, submitted his report dated 3.6.96. The findings of this report submitted by the Commissioner, having been seriously subjected to a challenge,the learned counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that the conclusion so arrived at and the opinion expressed by the Commissioner that the suit premises was in a completely dilapidated condition and no repairs could be carried out, was against the facts and far from truth whereas, as is his submission, since the defendant-landlord did not succeed in the previous suit for eviction of the plaintiff respondent fromthe suit premises and, therefore, with a devise to force eviction of the plaintiff from the suit premises, he has resorted to commission of acts of mischief thereby making the suit premises inhabitable and inconvenient as well as insecure and unsafe for use, occupation and carrying on business by the plaintiff and, as a result, the defendant-landlord is taking recourse to illegal and unauthorised means to se-cure eviction of the plaintiff from the premises. He further submitted that the plaintiff-respondent was carrying on his business since long in the disputed premises and he was ever ready and willing to pay the rent to which the defendant-landlord was ever resisting to force the eviction of the plaintiff-tenant. The electricity connection of the premises was disconnected and, besides, the rear wall of thedemised premises having given way and fallen, rear side of the suit premises which separated the premises of the landlords residential house as well as the one rented out and demised to the plaintiff, has rendered the suit premises wholly insecure and unsafe, besides, the business of the plaintiff has also been affected adversely and, therefore, the learned appellate Judge did not commit any factual or legal mis-take while passing the impugned judgment and order. He has further submitted that the plaintiff-respondent was ever ready and willing to carry out necessary repairs including the reconstruction and raising of the damaged and fallen rear wall of the shop besides necessary repairs and patching works of the premises and, therefore, since the defendant-petitioner himself has failed to carry out the man-date of legal provisions of Section 20 of the said Act of 1950 and, therefore, this petition is wholly devoid of any merit, deserving dismissal outright. (8). The main point for determination is : whether the impugned appellate order, made in favour of the respondent, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause an irreparable injury to the petitioner or there is any ille- gality or material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction by the lower appellate court. (9). At the outset, it may be mentioned that the defendant, though erroneously, denied that the suit premises were let out to the plaintiff and there existed any relationship of a tenant and a land lord. This led the trial court to hold that since there was absence of such relationship and hence there being no prima facie caseas such, no other requisites were established in favour of the plaintiff and hence his prayer for issuance of temporary injunctions, as prayed for, stood dismissed. (10). However, the learned appellate Judge, disagreeing therewith, and with every justification therefor, held that there did exist relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, as the learned counsel for the petitioner too felt, lastly, unable to dispute. (10). However, the learned appellate Judge, disagreeing therewith, and with every justification therefor, held that there did exist relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, as the learned counsel for the petitioner too felt, lastly, unable to dispute. The defendant had sought eviction of the plaintiff on the basis of contract of tenancy in the suit previously filed and decreed by the trial court though the same was dismissed at the appellate stage and the defendant did not challenge the appellate verdict. So, once having admitted such relationship, there being no subsequent change in the relationship or their status inter-se vis-a-vis the suit premises, the learned appellate Judge did not commit any illegality or material irregularity in arriving at the same conclusion. It resulted in upsetting and reversal of the finding of the trial court. Once it was held that the suit premises were let out to the plaintiff and were in his use and occupation under a tenancy, the provisionsof Section 20 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, which runs as under, it was incumbent upon the defendant, as a landlord, to keep the premises in a good and tenantable repaired condition unless, and there is none, there was contrary agreement to keep the same in repairs by the plaintiff-tenant: ``20. Landlords duty to keep premises in good repair. (1) The landlord shall be bound to keep in good and tenantable repair any premises to which this Act applies except in cases where the tenant has undertaken by agreement to keep premises in repair. (2) If the landlord neglects to make within a reasonable time after notice, any repairs which he is bound to make under sub-section (1), the tenant may make the same himself, and deduct the expenses of such repairs from the rent, or otherwise recover it from the landlord; Provided that the amount so deducted or recoverable in any year shall not exceed one twelth of the rent payable by the tenant for that year. (11). (11). The defendant has been seriously disputing his liability to repair and maintain the premises in safe, secure and repaired condition and, as is borne out by the report of the Commissioner, the rear wall of the premises has fallen and the rear portion of the same has become wholly insecure for the plaintiff to stock, sell and purchase for the purpose the goods of general merchandise, in which he isdealing. Besides, the other walls of the premises requiring plastering and repairs and the roof of the premises too having become damaged and amenable to inlet of rainy-water, sunlight and air, results in substantial damage to the goods and property stored in the premises. Though the report of the Commissioner is seriously challenged by the respondent, however, needless to repeat that due to completeneglect by the defendant in keeping the premises in a tenantable and repaired condition since long, it has acquired the shape and condition of a dilapidated premises. The defendant lost his previous suit of eviction of the plaintiff and since then he appears to be in search of some extra-judicial way to force eviction of the plaintiff from the premises. (12). The learned counsel for the petitioner has, relying on the report of the Commissioner submitted that since the premises were completely in a dilapidated condition and even the rear wall of it had fallen, necessitating raising of a new one in place thereof besides major repairs of the unplastered and loose bricks of the remaining walls and damaged roof and hence, in the garb of so called repairs, nonew construction or reconstruction can be permitted in the light of provisions of Section 20 of the said Act of 1950. (13). Admittedly, the defendant is still opposting any type of proposed repairs and, at the same time, neglecting to do so himself, and hence this entitles the plaintiff to carry out the necessary repairs including reconstruction of the rear-fallenwall which cannot be termed to be a new construction. Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act also requires the lessee to keep the demised property in as good condition as it was at the time when he occupied it. Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act also requires the lessee to keep the demised property in as good condition as it was at the time when he occupied it. On failure of the defendant to keep it properly repaired in a tenantable condition, it leaves the defendant (sic) with no other option and alternative but to repair and restore it to the condition in which he had initially occupied the same, as a tenant of the defendant. (14). A similar controversy came to be adjudicated upon by Honble Mr. M.C. Jain J. (as he then was) in (M/s.) Kistur Chand Jawari Lal vs. Manghi Lal (1) and while differentiating between the words `repairs and `reconstruction. His Lordship concluded that the restoration of the fallen roof would not amount to reconstruction. It is pertinent to quote paras 10 to 12 of the judgment as below : ``10.................. The next question for consideration is whether this work fell within repairs or re-construction. There is a fundamental difference between repair and re-construction. The test for determination whether a thing is a repair or not is to see whether the act actually done is replacement of a defective part or the replacement of the entire or substantial part of the demised premises. 11. Law Lexicons define `Repair as under :– Websters International Dictionary of the English language (2 Vols.) Repair : Act of repairing : restoration, or state of being restored, to a bound or good state after decay, waste, injury etc.; supply of loss, reparation, mending. Also an instance or result of such restoration often in plural, as the repairs to the house are extensive. Condition with respect to the soundness need of repairing etc, as, as house in good, or bad, repair, or out of repair. 2. Murray : New English dictionary (10 Vols.) Repair : The act of restoring to a sound or unimpaired condition; the process by which this is accomplished, the result attained; Relative state or condition of something admitting or susceptible of restoration in event of actual or possible damage or decay; chiefly of buildings or other composite structures and in phrase, in good (or bad) repair. 3. Funk and Wangnalls : New Standard Dictionary of English Language (1963). Repair : To mend, add to, or make over, as, to repair a building. 3. Funk and Wangnalls : New Standard Dictionary of English Language (1963). Repair : To mend, add to, or make over, as, to repair a building. The process of repairing, restoration after decay, waste, injury, or partial destruction, supply of loss; reparation, as, the repair of a building, often in plural, as to make repairs on a roof. Condition after use, especially, good condition, after repairing as, in what repair is the house ? 3. Ballantine : Law Dictionary (1954) (O.S.A.) Repair : Under statutes authorizing special assessments for the reconstruction of street improvements, but not for the repair thereof, the word `repair contemp-lates an existing structure or thing which has become imperfect by reason of the action of the elements, or otherwise. Work done on a structure which has not been demolished, but which has been damaged. The word is to be distinguished from reconstruction which properly applies only to work done upon a structure which had been demolished in whole or in part. 5. Strouds Judicial Dictionary (Third edition) (1952). Repair : To repair means to make good defects, including renewal where that is necessary, i.e., petching, where patching is reasonably practicable and, where it is not, you must put in a view piece. ..........But `repair does not connote a total reconstruction, Inglis vs. Buttery, (1878 3 A AC 552); Greg vs. Planque, (1936) I.B.B. 669, R.V. Epson, (1863) 8 LT 383 (Reproduced from A.I.R. 1960 Madras 24 page 26) Restoration of the fallen roof would not amount to reconstruction, it has been held in B.B. Chatterjee vs. Munsif (Allahabad, 1959). Alla- habad Law Journal 227, that construction of a fallen wall is a repair. The facts of Sita Ram vs. R.M. Muni (1965 ALJ 698) and Kurion vs. Jacob, (AIR 1975 Kerala 175), relied upon by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner are quite different and distinguishable. They do not go to help the non-petitioner. Thus the petitioner had a strong prima facie case in their favour for getting the non- petitioner restrained from obstructing them in carrying out the said repairs. 12. The trial court had rightly held that the balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioners and they would suffer an irreparable loss if the desired injunction is not granted. The learned District Judge has not discussed these points in his orders. As such all the three revision petitions deserve to be accepted. 12. The trial court had rightly held that the balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioners and they would suffer an irreparable loss if the desired injunction is not granted. The learned District Judge has not discussed these points in his orders. As such all the three revision petitions deserve to be accepted. (15). Similarly, the words `construct, `construction, `re- construct, `alterationand `repair came for consideration in; M.P. Ramchandrachar vs. Commissioner, Mysore City Corporation (2) and, after referring to various treatises and dictionary meanings, Honble Mr. H.M. Tilhari, J. summed up the same in para 30 of the judgment, which is as follows : ``30. From a reading of the definition of the Expression- Alteration, Construction, Re-Construction and repair, it comes out as under :– ``Construction or the act to construct refers to and applies to construction or erection or building of something new which did not exist at all. To construct means to construct something which did not exist. The act of reconstruction no doubt carries with it the idea of construc- tion, but it differs in one respect, that in case of reconstruction there is an element of something which is being reconstructed. That, that thing or building or element did exist at one time and thereafter it was destroyed or was demolished before the work of reconstruction being taken out, that is in the case of construction there is no such thing which is to be constructed had been in existence, really a new thing is constructed. But in case of reconstruction there must have been something in existence and thereafter it is being destroyed or demolished and then constructed afresh of the new thing in its place. In case of repairs the act of repair presupposes existence of the thing to be repaired. The word `repair contemplates an existing structure or thing which has become defective or imperfect while reconstruction presupposes non-existence of the thing to be reconstructed as an entity. In case of repair to the original existing structure, something is supplied to that existing building or structure which has been lost or destroyed and which is necessary to be supplied to keep it in perfect good condition for use. In case of repair to the original existing structure, something is supplied to that existing building or structure which has been lost or destroyed and which is necessary to be supplied to keep it in perfect good condition for use. But in case of reconstruction the thing to be reconstructed looses its entity that it had to be when it had been in existence and according to the Supreme Court case, in case of a building, restoration of stability, part of it or any portion of it can be considered to be repairs. (16). Presently, since, due to deliberate neglect to repair the premises, the defendant has suffered damage to the same resulting in substantial decay, damage and disrepair and consequential fall of the rear wall and damage to the walls and the roof making the suit premises inhabitable (sic) and unworthy of use for runningbusiness by the plaintiff. The main structure of the premises is in existence, being in the use and occupation of the plaintiff and it warrants repairs for removal of defects and imperfectness besides raising of a rear wall in place of the fallen one to keep the whole demised premises in a perfectly safe and good condition for bringing it to the condition in which it was let out to the plaintiff and not more. In its absence, the existing structure could fall resulting in loss of life and property. It would not result in any loss or inconvenience to the defendant and, on the contrary, it would financially benefit the defendant since the plaintiff has not even sought adjustment of the likely expenditure to be adjusted against the rental amount of the premises. (17). In view of this discussion, since all the three necessary requisites of (i) existence of prima facie case; (ii) balance of convenience and (iii) irreparable loss, stood established in favour of the plaintiff, the appellate court was left with no otheralternative but to pass the impugned order thereby granting temporary-mandatory injunction, as above, and it cannot be termed to be perverse, arbitrary or capricious nor contrary to the legal principles. (18). The following observations of Honble Mr. G.S. Singhvi, J. in Shri Maharaj Kumar Ranjeet Singh vs. Shakir Bhai (3) also fortify this view : ``7. (18). The following observations of Honble Mr. G.S. Singhvi, J. in Shri Maharaj Kumar Ranjeet Singh vs. Shakir Bhai (3) also fortify this view : ``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 premi- ses 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-petitioner 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 at least to remove their goods and abandon the use of the same for the purpose, for which it was let out. the learned trial court had overlooked 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. (19). Lastly, the learned counsel for the respondent, while citing decision rendered in (M/s. Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Coca-Cola Company & Ors. (4),submitted that the defendant, erroneously and malafide, even denied factum of relationship with the plaintiff as his tenant to defeat the claim of the plaintiff and so he has not exhibited a conduct free from blame-worthiness and hence, under the provisions of O. 39 Rr. 1 and 2 CPC the relief of inter-locutory injunction, being purely equitable one, cannot be allowed to succeed in invocation of the jurisdictionof the court. 1 and 2 CPC the relief of inter-locutory injunction, being purely equitable one, cannot be allowed to succeed in invocation of the jurisdictionof the court. (20). Besides, on merits also, in absence of any illegality or material irregularity, none in the case in hand, in exercising jurisdiction of the appellate court, the impugned order warrants no interference as is also held in : Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Acronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad and Anr. vs. Ajit PrasadTarway, Manager (Purchase and Stores) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad (5). (21). As a result, the petitioner has failed to prove that impugned order has occasioned a failure of justice or that it has resulted in any irreparable injury to him. Conversely, the respondent has been suffering an irreparable injury at his hands, warranting interference with the impugned order, presently being impugned. (22). On the basis of above discussion, this petition is devoid of merit and deserves its dismissal. (23). However, with a view to make the impugned injunction order more clear and efficacious, it is observed that all necessary repairs required for bringing the suit premises to its original shape and condition when it was, initially, let out to the plaintiff, including reconstructing the rear wall of the premises and repairs of the walls, including their plastering, and the roof shall be carried out by the plaintiff athis own costs which shall not be recoverable from the defendant nor shall the same be adjustable against the contracted rent of the premises. In case the defendant fails to get the electricity connection restored within a month from the date of this order, the plaintiff shall be at liberty to take its connection in his own name on the condition of bearing all expenses of connection, fitting, security, consumption etc. (24). Consequently, this petition fails and is dismissed with affirmation of the impugned order with the aforesaid modification/clarification. (25). The revision petition stands disposed of in the indicated manner.