JUDGMENT Vinod K. Sharma, J.:- The petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana accepting the appeal filed by the respondent-landlord. 2. The petitioner has filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondent from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner. The petitioner is a tenant and the factum of tenancy is not in dispute. 3. The leaned trial Court was pleaded to grant injunction in favour of the petitioner and restrained respondent-defendant from interfering in the possession of the petitioner except with due process of law. 4. The respondent-landlord preferred an appeal against the order passed by the learned trial Court. The order has been modified by the learned lower Appellate Court by observing the injunction would operate qua the tenanted premises as given in the rent note. The learned lower appellate Court observed that as per the rent note, the petitioner was rented out drawing room, two rooms, kitchen and store and, therefore, no restraint order can be passed against the landlord except for his premises. The order passed by the learned lower appellate Court being perverse cannot be sustained. It is not in dispute that on the ground floor there is a drawing room, two rooms, kitchen and store, in addition there to, there is bath room and latrine and some open space. It cannot be presumed that the tenant would not be permitted to use bath room and latrine, though he has been rented out whole of the ground floor. The tenanted premises, therefore, is to be read to mean that the whole of the ground floor has been rented out to the petitioner who is entitled to protect his possession and cannot be dispossessed except with due process of law. 5. Consequently, this revision is accordingly allowed. The order passed by the learned lower Appellate Court is set aside and that of learned trial Court is restored. ----------------------------