JUDGMENT 1. - These three, revision petitions are directed against the order dated 26.11.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Churu whereby the appeals field by the plaintiffs-petitioners against dismissal of their interlocutory applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Churu vide his order dated 6.1.1997 were dismissed. 2. The brief facts of these three revision petitions are that the plaintiff-petitioners are the tenants/licensees of suit shops of the defendants-non-petitioners. Petitioners of Civil Revision No. 40 of 1998 are the licensees of Shops No. 1 & 2 since their predecessors for last more than 70 years. Petitioner of Revision Petition No. 41 of 1998 is the licensee of Shop No. 5 and petitioners of Revision No. 49 of 1998 are the licensees of Shop No. 49 of 1998. Initially the rent of these shops was very nominal but according to the petitioners, it has been increased very excessively. 3. It is an admitted case of the petitioners that the provisions of Rajasthan Premises [Control of Rent and Eviction] Act, 1950 are not applicable to the instant case. The tenancy/lease of these shops is being governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. 4. The case of the plaintiffs petitioners is that they were paying rent up to 1992 at the prevailing rates. Thereafter, the defendants declined to accept the rent at the prevailing rates. The rent/licence fee has been enhanced by the defendants-non-petitioners in terms of the Standing Order No. X/3/1990 issued by the Public Works Department, Govt. of Rajasthan. The defendants-non-petitioners have intimated the plaintiffs-petitioners that rent/lease has been calculated as per formula given in the above Standing Order. The defendants-non-petitioners have, therefore, demanded rent from the plaintiffs-petitioners @ Rs. 2,163/- per month from the plaintiffs-petitioners of Revision No. 40 of 1998; and @ Rs. 639/- and 737/- per month from the plaintiff petitioners of Revision Nos. 41 & 49 of 1998 respectively. 5. Being dissatisfied with exorbitant increase of rent, the plaintiffs-petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants-non-petitioners in the Court of the learned Civil Judge [Junior Division], Churu. Along with that suit, they also moved an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 CPC for grant of temporary injunction. 6. According to the petitioners, the suit shops are made of clay and ordinary building materials. Along with that suit, they also moved an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 CPC for grant of temporary injunction. 6. According to the petitioners, the suit shops are made of clay and ordinary building materials. The defendants-non-petitioners never spent a single penny on the maintenance of the above shops. The enhancement of rent of these shops has been made arbitrarily and before re-determining the rent of these shops, the plaintiffs-petitioners were not afforded any opportunity of being heard. The have, therefore, sought temporary injunction against the defendants-non-petitioners that they may be restrained from realising rent of the suit shops at the enhanced rates. 7. After considering the material on record, the learned trial Court did not find any prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs-petitioners. The balance of convenience was also not found in their favour. It also found that no irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiffs-petitioners. Hence, the learned trial Court dismissed the application for grant of interlocutory injunction moved on behalf of the plaintiffs-petitioners vide his judgment dated 6.1.1997. 8. Thereafter, the plaintiffs-petitioners filed appeals before the learned Additional District Judge, Churu against the Judgment dated 6.1.1997 dismissing their applications for grant of interlocutory injunctions. The learned appellate Court dismissed those appeals vide Judgment dated 26.11.1997. Hence these revisions. 9. I have heard M/s. Chaitanya Gahlot and Krishna Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-petitioners and have very carefully gone through the written submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that from the perusal of the prevailing rates as well as enhanced rates of rent, it would be clear that the defendants-non-petitioners have adopted a very highhanded attitude in enhancing the rent of the suit shops so exorbitantly and unilaterally. He submitted that if the defendants-non-petitioners wanted revision of rent of the suit shops, they ought to have followed the principles of natural justice. In the instant case, before re-determining the rent of the suit shops, the plaintiffs were neither issued any notice nor afforded any opportunity of being heard. Thus, the demand made by the defendants-on-petitioners from the plaintiffs-petitioners at the enhanced rates of rent is totally unreasonable, unjust, harash and against the principles of natural justice and hence it cannot be sustained in law. 11. Thus, the demand made by the defendants-on-petitioners from the plaintiffs-petitioners at the enhanced rates of rent is totally unreasonable, unjust, harash and against the principles of natural justice and hence it cannot be sustained in law. 11. The learned counsel further contended that the plaintiff-petitioners are doing their business on the suit shops since their forefathers and if they are evicted from the suit shops in case they fail to pay the unreasonable enhanced rent/lease as demanded by the defendants-non-petitioners, irreparable loss would be caused to them as their entire business would be spoil-ed. 12. It has also been contended by the learned counsel that according to Circular dated 31.8.1991 issued by the Department of General Administration, Govt. of Rajasthan, the Public Works Department ought to have offered the suit shops for sale to the plaintiffs-petitioners. The plaintiffs-petitioners are still willing to negotiate the same if such an offer is made to them. 13. I have considered the above submissions made at the bar. 14. At the first instance, I may state that there is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below that the petitioners have got no prima facie case and the balance of convenience is also not in their favour. There is also no dispute that the petitioners cannot claim any protection under the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises [Control of Rent and Eviction] Act, 1950. Hence the relationship of the parties would be governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. 15. As stated above, the rent has been increased /enhanced by the defendants-non-petitioners by following the formula given in the above mentioned Standing Order issued by the State Govt. Both the Courts below have also concurrently held that the rent assessed by the defendants-non-petitioners as per the formula given in the above Standing Order is not excessive as compared to the prevailing market rates of Rent in the vicinity where the suit shops are situated. In this view of the matter, the learned Courts below have not committed any material irregularity or illegality in not granting interlocutory injunction in favour of the plaintiffs-petitioners. 16. In the result, there is no force in these revision petitions and they are hereby dismissed summarily.Revision dismissed. *******