Judgment Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.—Leave to amend the memorandum of the petition is granted. 2. Rule. Mr. B.S. Patel, the learned Counsel waives service of notice of Rule for the Respondent No. 1, who is the main contesting respondent. The other respondents have been served but none appears, on their behalf. 3. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 30.01.2009, rendered by the learned 6th Addl. District Judge, Vadodara in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 92 of 2008. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is the original defendant No. 1, is a tenant residing on the ground floor of the suit premises. The Respondent No. 1 is the landlord and the original plaintiff, and respondents Nos. 2 to 6 are the original defendants Nos. 2 to 6. The suit being Rent Suit No. 146 of 2006, has been filed by the Respondent No. 1, inter alia for declaration and grant of permanent injunction, restraining the petitioner as well as his agents and servants from interfering with the repair work to be carried in the suit premises, excluding the portion occupied by the petitioner, which are in a dilapidated condition. Along with the suit, the Respondent No. 1 filed an application at Exh. 5, for grant of temporary injunction. The said application was dismissed by order dated 23.5.2008, of the Trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the Respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal, being Misc. Civil Appeal No. 92 of 2008, which has been allowed by the District Court by passing the impugned order, hence the petition. 5. Mr. Nilesh A. Pandya, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted as under: (a) That the petitioner is a tenant on the ground floor of the suit premises and the Respondent No. 1 is the landlord. (b) The petitioner is residing with his family members in the ground floor of the suit premises, consisting of two rooms, one kitchen, latrine, bath-room as well as open space for the last about fifty to sixty years, as a tenant, and is paying rent regularly. (c) That the Respondent No. 1 is attempting to disturb the occupation of the petitioner on some pretext or other, by giving threats to vacate the premises. (c) That the Respondent No. 1 is attempting to disturb the occupation of the petitioner on some pretext or other, by giving threats to vacate the premises. The petitioner had filed a criminal complaint in this regard and has also been constrained to file a Suit, being Rent Suit No. 162 of 2005, which is pending. In the said suit, the petitioner has been granted an order of temporary injunction in his favour on 21.3.2007, by the concerned Court and the Respondent No. 1 has been restrained from dispossessing the petitioner from the suit premises, till the final disposal of the suit. However, the Respondent No. 1 has filed the present suit to restrain the petitioner from interfering with the repair work to be carried out on the first and second floors of the suit premises, solely with a view to disturbing the possession of the petitioner. (d) That the Trial Court has rightly rejected the application at Exh.5 filed by the Respondent No. 1, but the said order has been wrongly set aside by the lower Appellate Court, without taking into consideration the factual and legal aspects of the matter in proper perspective. (e) That the Lower Appellate Court has erred in exercising jurisdiction vested in it, and has over-looked the important aspect that the real intention of the Respondent No. 1 is to demolish the entire suit premises and take possession of the portion occupied by the petitioner. (f) That the Appellate Court below ought to have considered that if the Respondent No. 1 is permitted to repair the first and second floors, then automatically the ground floor will have to be removed, thereby adversely affecting the occupancy of the petitioner. (g) That the lower Appellate Court has erred in holding that the suit premises are old and in a dilapidated condition and it is necessary to remove the dangerous portion of the building. (h) That the impugned order has been passed without considering the factual and legal issues involved, in the matter and is unjust and illegal, therefore it may be quashed and set aside. 6. On the other hand, Mr. (h) That the impugned order has been passed without considering the factual and legal issues involved, in the matter and is unjust and illegal, therefore it may be quashed and set aside. 6. On the other hand, Mr. B.S. Patel, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1, while strongly opposing the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted as under: (a) That the order of the Appellate Court below is just and proper as it has taken into consideration all the relevant factual and legal aspects of the matter and has protected the rights of the Respondent No. 1 and the petitioner equally. (b) That the Respondent No. 1 has specifically stated in the plaint that he does not want to carry out any repairs in the portion occupied by the petitioner as a tenant, i.e. the ground floor of the suit premises, and the repairs are only to be carried out on the first and second floors of the building, therefore there is no intention to disturb the possession and occupancy of the petitioner. (c) That the Respondent No. 1 has never denied that the petitioner is a tenant of the said premises, but it is essential to carry out repairs on the suit premises in order to prevent further damage. (d) That the premises in question are very old and in a dilapidated condition and if repairs are not carried out, they may collapse and cause untold damage, and even injury, to human life, as the building is situated on the road. (e) That the Municipal Corporation has issued a notice to the Respondent No. 1, to carry out repairs on the said premises and remove the dangerous portion. (f) That the Appellate Court below has taken into consideration the Panchanama wherein the dilapidated condition of the suit property has been described and has come to the conclusion that, while permitting Respondent No. 1 to repair the first and second floors of the suit property, the rights of the petitioner as tenant and his possession, should not be disturbed and the petitioner should be given prior notice before starting the repairs. As the order of the District Court is a balanced one, the court may not interfere. On the strength of the above arguments, it is submitted that the petition be rejected. 7. As the order of the District Court is a balanced one, the court may not interfere. On the strength of the above arguments, it is submitted that the petition be rejected. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the respective parties, perused the averments made in the petition, contents of the impugned order and other documents on record. 8. It is not disputed that the petitioner is a tenant of the Respondent No. 1, and is residing on the ground floor of the suit premises. The plaint reveals that the Respondent No. 1 is not seeking to repair that portion of the suit premises, which are in the occupation of the petitioner, but wants to repair the first and second floors of the building. The relief claimed by the Respondent No. 1 is to restrain the petitioner, his agents or his servants from interfering with the repair work which may be carried out on the first and second floors of the building. 9. It is also undisputed that the building in question is old and in an extremely dilapidated condition. Certain portions are considered to be dangerous, by the Municipal Corporation. There is ample material on record to show that the said building is in dire need of reconstruction and repairs and in order to prevent loss and damage to life and property, certain dangerous portions have to be removed. This aspect has been gone into in detail, by the District Court, which has taken into consideration the Panchanama prepared by the Court Commissioner, wherein minute details of the precarious condition in which the building is found, have been vividly set out. Further, the Municipal Corporation, Vadodara has issued notice dated 3.12.2008 to the Respondent No. 1, to repair the building in question and remove the dangerous portions. 10. By way of the impugned order, the Appellate Court below has permitted the Respondent No. 1 to carry out repairs of the suit property, in terms of notice dated 3.12.2008 of the Vadodara Municipal Corporation, but at the same time, has not permitted the Respondent No. 1 to carry out any other repairs, not envisaged in the said notice. 10. By way of the impugned order, the Appellate Court below has permitted the Respondent No. 1 to carry out repairs of the suit property, in terms of notice dated 3.12.2008 of the Vadodara Municipal Corporation, but at the same time, has not permitted the Respondent No. 1 to carry out any other repairs, not envisaged in the said notice. Directions have been issued to the Respondent No. 1 to the effect that, while carrying out the repair work, the Respondent No. 1 will take special care to ensure that the rights of the petitioner as tenant, as also his possession of the tenanted premises, are not disturbed. It has further been directed that the petitioner be given advance notice of fifteen days in writing, before starting the repairs, and only thereafter should the work of repair be commenced. The date of the commencement of the repair work and the approximate date of completion, should also be informed to the petitioner so that he can make suitable arrangement, or take precautions, accordingly. 11. The order of the District Court has been passed keeping in mind the facts and circumstances, of the case, as well as the ground realities. In the considered opinion of this court, the said order is not only just and proper, but also maintains the balance of rights and equities between the parties. There is no material on record to show that the Respondent No. 1 is resorting to the repair work of the dilapidated building with a view to dispossessing the petitioner or disturbing his possession. On the contrary, there is sufficient material on record to show that the suit premises are precariously in need of immediate repairs. All the above relevant aspects have been considered by the District Court. 12. As the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error, no interference is warranted. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.