JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the order dated 20.8.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Churu whereby he confirmed the order dated 4.8.1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge [Junior Division], Churu. 2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit in the Court of the learned Civil Judge [Junior Division], Churu with the allegation that he is the tenant of the defendant-non-petitioner in the suit premises. He also produced the copy of the rent deed and certain rent receipts. He alleged that the defendant-non-petitioner was harassing him and wanted to forcibly evict him from the suit premises. He, therefore, prayed that a permanent injunction may be granted and the defendant-non-petitioner may be restrained from taking the law in his own hands to evict the plaintiff-petitioner otherwise than in due course of law. 3. The defendant-non-petitioner resisted the suit on the ground that the plaintiff-petitioner was not his tenant and he was occupying the suit premises without any authority. The plaintiff was harassing his other tenants and was obstructing the defendant-non-petitioner from going on the first floor of the suit premises, though he has a right to go. Along with that suit, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application u/O. 39, Rr. 1 & 2 CPC and prayed for temporary injunction restraining the defendant-non-petitioner from evicting him from the suit premises. 4. Affidavits and documents were also filed. The learned lower Court appointed the Commissioner, who inspected the suit premises in the presence of both. the parties and submitted his report on 15.7.1997 alongwith the map of the suit premises. 5. The learned Civil Judge after considering of the documents and other materials brought on record came to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner and that he is the tenant of the defendant-non-petitioner. He was persuaded to take this view in view of the rent note and rent receipts filed by the plaintiff-petitioner. However, he felt that the plaintiff has got no right to close the shutters and place his lock over the main gate inasmuch as the defendant-non-petitioner has got a right to enter into the gallary and reach the first floor of the suit premises. The learned Civil Judge, therefore, granted partial relief to the plaintiff-petitioner vide his order dated 4.8.1997. 6. The learned Civil Judge, therefore, granted partial relief to the plaintiff-petitioner vide his order dated 4.8.1997. 6. Against that order dated 4.8.1997, an appeal was filed before the learned appellate Court, which also came to be dismissed vide Judgment dated 20.8.1997. Hence this revision petition. 7. I have heard Mr. S.R. Bhandari, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-petitioner and have very carefully gone through the record of the case. 8. Mr. S.R. Bhandari, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-petitioner has drawn my attention to the report of the Commissioner and the site plan prepared by him. According to the report of the Commissioner, the whole premises appears to be a compact unit. The plaintiff has stored his Kerosene Oil drums in the verandah and on both sides of the Hall there is a room, the entrance of which goes from the Gallary. On the right side of the gallary, there is latrine and stair case. The Commissioner has also stated that there is a shutter at the entrance of the suit premises. The sign-board of the shop of the plaintiff is also hanging over the main gate. From the above, I am convicted that the above premises constitute a compact unit. When the plaintiff is storing his valuable articles like Kerosene Oil etc. in the house, he would definitely like to close the doors and place his locks in order to provide safety to the articles lying therein. It is pertinent to note here that at the time when the Commissioner inspected the site, no articles relating to defendant were found there. Hence, I hold that the learned Courts below have committed a illegality and irregularity in not exercising the jurisdiction vested in them in passing appropriate orders on the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. For the above reasons, this revision petition is allowed and orders dated 20.8.1997 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Churu and dated 4.8.1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge [Junior Division] Churu are st aside. I order that the plaintiff-petitioner shall be allowed to place his locks after closing the shutters of the suit premises and the defendant-non-shall not cause any obstructions in the above act and shall also not take any steps either directly or indirectly to evict the plaintiff-petitioner from the suit premises without due process of law.There will be no order as to costs.Revision allowed. *******