Judgment Sinha, J. These two appeals arise out of two orders both dated 30th June, 1994 passed by the learned Trial Judge in two applications filed in the two suits filed by the parties. The respondent No. 1 filed Title Suit No. 161/94 claiming, Inter alia, for permanent injunction and the appellant-plaintiff who is the landlord of the suit premises filed Title Suit No. 253 of 1994 claiming, inter alia, for permanent injunction. In both the aforementioned suits, applications for injunction were filed. The only question which arose for consideration before the learned Trial Judge was as to whether back-yard of the tenanted premises forms a part of tenancy or not. The learned trial Judge referred to the description of the tenanted premises as stated in the schedule appended to the agreement dated 2.7.88 and came to the conclusion that there is nothing to show that the back-yard of the premises forms a part of the tenanted premises. On the aforementioned finding the application for injunction was rejected. The only question which arises, therefore, is as to whether the appellant has made out a case for grant of injunction. During the pendency of the appeal the premises in question has been sold to the respondent No. 2. 2. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not necessary for us to delve deep in to the facts of the case. 3. The agreement dated 2.7.88, as noticed hereinbefore contains the schedule of the tenancy. It may be true that while describing the tenancy it is said that the same consisting of only three rooms, a kitchen with a separate bath and privy on the ground floor, but in the description of the boundary it has been stated that no part of the premises abuts the back-yard of the same premises. From all the sides of the premises in question, it appears that one or the other road or lane or bye-lane exists. In otherwords no part of the tenanted-premises constitutes boundary of the suit premises and thus an arguable case has been made out which has to be determined upon adduction of evidence as to whether description of the suit premises meaning thereby number of rooms etc. shall prevail or the boundary shall prevail. In otherwords no part of the tenanted-premises constitutes boundary of the suit premises and thus an arguable case has been made out which has to be determined upon adduction of evidence as to whether description of the suit premises meaning thereby number of rooms etc. shall prevail or the boundary shall prevail. It has been stated by the appellant in his application for injunction that he was in possession of the back-yard of the suit land also. 4. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the appellant has made out a prima facie case. As the respondent intends to make construction over the suit premises, there can not be any doubt whatsoever that both the balance of convenience as also irretrievable injury are in favour of the appellant. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the learned Court below committed an error in passing the impugned order in so far as it failed to take in to consideration the aforementioned aspect of the matter. For the reasons aforementioned, the appeal is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the suit land. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, the suit should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order. There will be no order as to costs. Dutta, J. ; I agree.