JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition under section 115, CPC, against the Judgment, and order dated 2.9.1993 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (S.D.) No. 2, Udaipur in cigil appeal No. 70/90 thereby upholding the order dated 14.3.1990 passed by the then Munsif City (North), Udaipur who had also dismissed the application filed u/0. 39 Rr. 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 CPC. The petitioner, who is plaintiff before the trial Court, filed a suit for permanent injunction alongwith an application for issuance of the temporary injunction thereby making a prayer before the trial Court that non-petitioner (defendant), Municipal Council, Udaipur be restrained from recovering arrears of enhanced rent pursuant to notification dated 10.8.1983 issued by the Local Self Department of the State Government. The plaintiff brought a suit that suit-premises i.e. shop No. 10 situated at Chetak Circle, Udaipur was let-out to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 210/- and since then he was in exclusive use and occupation of the premises as a tenant of the respondent, Municipal Council and, therefore, his submission is that there was a contract of tenancy, as such between the non-petitioner and petitioner and the said order issued by the Government was not applicable in respect of the suit premises since the suit premises was let out on lease and it was never a case of licence having been granted to the petitioner and, accordingly, since he apprehended that non-petitioner, Municipal Council, treating the petitioner as a licence-holder instead of lease holder, as is his claim, in absence of payment of enhanced rent, would illegally and unauthorisely dispossess him from the use and occupation of the suit premises and, accordingly, the suit for permanent injunction along with application for temporary injunction was moved. This was seriously challenged by the non-petitioner before the trial Court and the learned Trial Judge, did not accept the contention of the petitioner and, instead, dismissed the application for temporary injunction vide its order dated 14.3.1990. 2. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was, lastly, disposed of by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (S.D.) No. 2, Udaipur vide judgment and order dated 2.9.1993 resulting in institution of present petition, as above. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned order passed by the trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court and have considered the same carefully. 4. Civil Judge (S.D.) No. 2, Udaipur vide judgment and order dated 2.9.1993 resulting in institution of present petition, as above. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned order passed by the trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court and have considered the same carefully. 4. On consideration of the contentions as have been raised in this petition, since the present case is squarely covered by the Single Bench decision of this Court rendered in SBC Revision Petition No. 90/93 passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice Shri A.P. Ravani on dated 12.3.1996 whereby Hon'ble C.J. while disposing of the similar petition has observed as follows: "The contention that the finding arrived at by the lower Courts that the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant municipality is that of licensee and licensor is erroneous and not in conformity with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Associated Hotels of India v. R.N. Kapoor, reported in AIR 1959 SC 1262 , is also of no help to the petitioner. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the finding arrived at by the lower Courts is erroneous with regarding to relationship of licensee and licensor, it cannot be said that any jurisdictional error has been committed by the lower Courts so as to call for interference in exercise of powers under section 115 CPC. The powers of this Court under section 115 CPC are very limited, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Ajit Prasad, AIR 1973 SC 76 . In view of the settled position of law no case for interference in exercise of powers under section 115 CPC is made out." 5. Resultantly, there remains no controversy warranting interference of this Court in exercise of power under section 115 CPC to interfere with the impugned order. Hence this revision petition being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed and impugned orders are hereby affirmed.Revision dismissed. *******