B. PADMARAJ, J. ( 1 ) NONE appears for the petitioner. When the matter has reached for admission, there is absolutely no representation on the side of the petitioner. Under the circumstances, therefore, left with no other alternative, instead of dismissing the Revision Petition for default, I myself carefully perused the case records including the impugned order made by the Court below in order to find but whether the impugned order or an order under Revision warrants any interference by this Court?. ( 2 ) THIS Revision Petition is by the petitioner who is an appellant before the Lower appellate Court. Being aggrieved by the order made by the Lower Appellate Court dated 2-11-2001 on LA. No. 1, the petitioner has preferred this Revision Petition. By the impugned order, the Lower Appellate Court has dismissed the LA. No. I of the petitioner herein whereunder he has sought for an ad interim order of injunction during the pendency of the appeal against the respondent. ( 3 ) IN the grounds of Revision the Revision petitioner has stated that the Court below has erred in rejecting the 1. A. No. I filed by the petitioner seeking for an order of Temporary Injunction restraining the hdmc from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner of the suit property and from demolishing the same during the pendency of the appeal. It has also been stated therein that the Court below ought to have taken into consideration that in view of the Zonal regulations as in force for Hubli-Dhanrwad area, the carrying out of repairs is legal and valid and that further neither the Respondent No. l nor the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had placed any cogent, trustworthy and reliable documentary evidence to show illegal and unauthorised construction. Mainly on these grounds, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order made by the 1st appellate Court. ( 4 ) THE Court below while declining to grant an order of Temporary Injunction in favour of the petitioner herein, has observed in the course of its impugned order as under :"6, It is to be remembered that temporary injunction is sought by the plaintiff in the appeal, which is against the dismissal of suit. ( 4 ) THE Court below while declining to grant an order of Temporary Injunction in favour of the petitioner herein, has observed in the course of its impugned order as under :"6, It is to be remembered that temporary injunction is sought by the plaintiff in the appeal, which is against the dismissal of suit. On merits after recording evidence after regular trial learned Judge of the trial court found that the disputed structure is on the common passage and it is put up without prior permission from HDMC. Trial court made observations that there are no pleading and evidence regarding the nature of constructions i. e. whether it is a new one or repaired. Admittedly, disputed structure is on the common passage and plaintiff has not obtained licence or permission from hdmc to put up the same. Sri P. H. Pawar, learned advocate submitted that there are provisions; in the Municipal Corporations act, even to regularise unauthorized constructions. It is argued that in case temporary injunction is not granted, HDMC will demolish the structure and appeal will be come infructuous. On the other hand, Sri s. D. Desai, learned advocate argued that for the last 7 years plaintiff preserved illegal constructipn through orders of the Court and that should not be continued further. It is argued that plaintiff has no prima facie case. " ( 5 ) AT the most who is this plaintiff appellant ? She is tenant under 4th respondent. Where is 4th respondent? He remained absent, in the trial Court. It is the case of appellant that alleged construction is by her landlord 4th defendant. Then why she should worry. Whether she being only a tenant in the premises, has right to restrain the demolition of illegal construction ? Even if appellant succeeds in this appeal, there are provisions in CPC for restitution. When the learned Judge of the trial Court after regular trial decided that the construction is illegal; and it is in the passage, when the appellant is not owner of the said construction, appellant has no prima facie case and balance of convenience in her favour. Hence question of her suffering irreparable loss does not arise, if temporary injunction is refused. Hence question of her suffering irreparable loss does not arise, if temporary injunction is refused. " ( 6 ) FROM the above observations made by the 1st appellate Court, it is very clear that the petitioner herein is only a tenant in respect of the premises belonging to the Respondent NO. 4. The Respondent No. 4 did not appear before the trial Court and had remained absent. It would further disclose that the disputed structure in respect of which a notice had been issued by the 1st respondent, had been put up illegally over a common passage and the petitioner herein is only trying to retain such illegal construction as far as he can through the process of the Court. It is needless to point out that the person who seeks an order of Temporary Injunction in pending proceedings must show that he or she is riot at fault and that he or she has not caused any such construction to be put up over a common passage. Under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, the jurisdiction of the Court to grant an order of Temporary Injunction which is purely an equitable relief, apart from other considerations will look to the conduct of the party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court and may refuse to grant the equitable relief unless his /her conduct is free from blame. Since the relief under Order-39 Rule 1 of cpc is wholly equitable in nature, the party invoking the jurisdiction has to show that he/she was not at all at fault. In the instant case, it is, found by the appellate court that the petitioner herein is not entitled to the relief sought for by the petitioner. That apart, the petitioner herein being only a tenant and not the owner of the premises in question, it is doubtful whether the petitioner can seek any such relief. In the circumstances of the case, there being an illegal construction put up over a common passage without obtaining any licence from the 1st respondent, no injunction can be granted against the Respondent No-1 which is proceeding to take action in accordance with law. As the petitioner has no prima facie right or title, neither balance of convenience nor irreparable injury would be caused to the petitioner, who is only a tenant and not the owner. As the petitioner has no prima facie right or title, neither balance of convenience nor irreparable injury would be caused to the petitioner, who is only a tenant and not the owner. Further more the statutory remedy being available by way of an appeal to challenge the impugned order made by the Court below, the revision before this court is not maintainable in law. ( 7 ) THEREFORE for the foregoing reasons. I am of the view that no interference with the impugned order of the Court below is called for. Even otherwise there being a statutory remedy available to the petitioner herein by way of an appeal, this Revision petition filed by the petitioner is clearly not maintainable in law. Hence this Revision petition filed by the petitioner stands dismissed. It is however made clear that if the petitioner intends to prefer an appeal against the impugned order, he is at liberty to do so and the observations made herein will not come in the way of the petitioner preferring an appeal against the impugned order. It is further made clear that the observations made herein are restricted to this proceeding only. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .