Judgment – Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 06-08-2005, passed by District Judge, Dehradun, in Misc. Civil Appeal No.1 07 of 2005, whereby the order of temporary injunction passed in favour of the plaintiff (present respondent no. 2) by trial court, is affirmed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff (respondent no, 2), is Bhumidhar of Plot No. 33/1 of Village Mauja, Prateet Nagar, over an area of 5.78 Bighas. It appears that a restaurant was being run by the plaintiff, as the land was situated by the side of the road. In the year 1994, plaintiff let out the building to Gairibdas (father-in-law of petitioner Hemlata), on rent at the rate of Rs. 24,0001- per annum for 12 months and a registered lease deed was executed between the parties. The said lease was later extended for five years. Pleading that since the defendants (present petitioners) intended to raise further constructions over the plot in suit in which Midway Hotel was being run, the plaintiff sought injunction against the petitioners (defendants). In said suit the trial court (Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rishikesh), on application 6C2, moved on behalf of plaintiff, granted temporary injunction against the defendants restraining them from raising further constructions. The said order dated 21-05-2005 was challenged before the lower appellate court (District Judge, Dehradun). The said Court after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal. Hence, this petition. 4. Sri Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 156 read with Section 165 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as U.P. Act No.1 of 1951), and argued that since in respect of land in suit no declaration under Section 143 of said Act was got made, as such the lease executed by the plaintiff, being in violation of Section 156, the rights of the lessor got extinguished under Section 165 of the Act. It is further contended that" therefore, the plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for injunction against the defendants and the courts below committed error of law in granting temporary injunction against the defendants, who have become Bhumidhars under Section 165 of the aforesaid Act. 5. I have examined the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is further contended that" therefore, the plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for injunction against the defendants and the courts below committed error of law in granting temporary injunction against the defendants, who have become Bhumidhars under Section 165 of the aforesaid Act. 5. I have examined the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The object of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951 is to abolish the Zamindari from the agricultuaeal land. The legislature has intended that the intermediaries should be removed and they be not permitted to get the cultivation done through the tenants admitted by them. Had the land in suit been used for agricultural purposes. what learned counsel for the petitioners has argued could have been accepted. But from the lease deed a copy of which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition it is clear that the parties to the lease have admitted that the land was not being used for the purposes connected with agriculture horticulture. animal husbandry. pisciculture or poultry forms. Rather it is admitted to the parties as mentioned in the lease deed that the land was being used to run a restaurant. That being so it cannot be said that in respect of such a land which is being used for commercial purposes other than the purposes of agriculture etc. is covered by Section 156 and 165 of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention of this Court to the principle of law laid down in Shital Prasad Vs. Mohd. Sabbir, 1989 R.D. pg. 127, in which the Allahabad High Court has held that the lessee, to whom the land is let out in violation of Section 156 and 165 of aforesaid Act became the Bhumidhar of the land. I have gone through the said case law. It does not pertain to a land in which a Hotel was being run by the Bhumidhar, rather it appears to be a case of a land used for agricultural purposes. 7. Otherwise also at this stage when only prima facie case it to be seen for granting or refusing the temporary injunction, it cannot be said that the courts below have erred in law after taking into account the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in favour of plaintiff-respondent. 8. 7. Otherwise also at this stage when only prima facie case it to be seen for granting or refusing the temporary injunction, it cannot be said that the courts below have erred in law after taking into account the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in favour of plaintiff-respondent. 8. Lastly, it is argued that the suit filed by the plaintiff is hit by Section 331 of U.P. Zmaindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, as a suit cannot be maintained for injunction against the Bhumidhars in the Civil Court. Had the defendants been recorded Bhumidhars of the land in suit, what is contented on their behalf could have been accepted, as under the garb of injunction a party cannot get declaration of his title in respect of which Revenue Court alone is competent to pass an order. But in the present case, it is the plaintiff who is recorded tenure holder, who has sought the injunction. As such, Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 is of no help to the petitioners (defendants). 9. For the reasons as discussed above, this Court does not find any error of law committed by the courts below. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Interim order dated 08-02-2006, is hereby vacated. However, it is made clear that the observations made in the above judgment would not prejudice the final merits of the case, pending before the trial court.