JUDGMENT This revision is directed against the Order dated 1.7.2000 in Misc. Appeal No. 3812000 by VI Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, affirming the order dated 31.3.2000 in Civil Suit No. 133A/2000 dismissing the application of the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC for temporary injunction. Undisputably, the plaintiff-petitioner is the owner of Shop No. 43, 43N2, Kingsway, Sadar Bazar, Main Road, Jabalpur. The defendant No. 1 is the tenant of the plaintiff therein. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants-respondents praying that the defendant-respondent No. 1 be restrained from sub-letting or parting with the possession of the suit-shop without the written permission of the plaintiff and the defendants respondents 2 & 3 be restrained from alienating the said shop or placing it in possession of a third person without written permission of the plaintiff. The plaintiff-petitioner also filed an application seeking temporary injunction to the above effect. The trial Court by its order dated 31.3.2000 held that there was no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner and accordingly dismissed the application for temporary injunction. In appeal preferred by the plaintiff-petitioner, the learned lower appellate Court by the impugned-order, affirmed the finding of the trial Court that there was no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff petitioner and dismissed the appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner plaintiff being the owner and landlord of the suit-shop, is entitled to obtain an injunction restraining the defendant-respondent No. 1 from creating sub-tenancy in the premises owned by him. It was submitted that creation of sub-tenancy without the written permission of the plaintiff-petitioner was an offence under the law and, therefore, temporary injunction ought to have been granted in his favour. The learned counsel for respondent No. I, however, supported the impugned-order and submitted that the petitioner-plaintiff was not entitled to the relief as claimed by him on vague and general allegations of creation of sub-tenancy by the respondent No. 1 in future. It would appear from the impugned-order that the averment of the plaintiff-petitioner in his application under Order 39 Rule I & 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction was that the defendant No. 1 was likely to create sub-tenancy in the suit-shop, as the liquor contract has been given by the respondents 2 & 3 for the year 2000-2001 on an auction held by them. It appears that the plaintiff-petitioner has not specified as to in whose favour such a sub-tenancy is likely to be created. Moreover, it may be noticed that the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 gives a remedy to the petitioner, in case sub-tenancy is created by the defendant No.1. By section 43 of the said Act, unlawful sub-letting has also been made a penal offence. Therefore, it is clear that the plaintiff-petitioner has civil as well as criminal remedy available to him in case his apprehension, as ventilated by him in his application for temporary injunction, materialises. The petitioner, however, cannot on his mere apprehension obtain the relief of temporary injunction. It may also be noticed that in case the prayer as above is allowed, it would also amount to granting him the relief claimed by him in the suit. In the circumstances, the Court below were justified in holding that there was no prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. His application was, therefore, rightly rejected. There is no jurisdictional error in the discretion exercised by the Court below. Accordingly, this revision has no merit and is dismissed.