JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 10/2/2010, whereby, the learned trial court partly allowed the temporary injunction application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff tenant and granted status quo order against the defendants. The plaintiff tenant approached this Court being aggrieved of the said order on the ground that in the original rent note as well as sale deed executed by the landlord in favour of defendant no.1 - Rakesh, it was clearly stipulated that for the shop on the ground floor sold by the landlord-Mahideep Vashistha to Rakesh, the right of access through staircase made at the North South side of the said shop shall be maintained by the purchaser Rakesh. The plaintiff approached the Court with the case that the said purchaser Rakesh after purchase of the shop admeasuring 335.4 sq ft. with the height of 11 ft. 10 inches removed the staircase passing through the said area of shop on the ground floor and provided alternative staircase from outside the said premises from backside for the landlord and seller Mahideep Vashistha and other tenants on the first floor and, therefore, the suit for injunction was filed. The learned trial court partly allowed the injunction application vide order dated 10/2/2010, which was upheld by the learned appellate court also vide order dated 23/5/2011. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner plaintiff with the help of the photographs and other relevant documents sought to explain that even the landlord has also filed affidavit in his support that the construction so raised has damaged the rooms at first floor to some extent. He further submitted that since right to access through the staircase from the North South side was stipulated in the rent note as well as in the sale deed, the purchaser was not entitled to remove the said staircase and provide alternative access through backside, which is lesser in width. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner plaintiff, this Court is of the view that the learned courts below even were in error in granting status quo order in the present case. The courts below by granting the status quo order in a way have stopped the removal of staircase, which was definitely an obstruction as it was passing through the 335.4 sq.ft. area of the shop with height of 11 ft. The courts below by granting the status quo order in a way have stopped the removal of staircase, which was definitely an obstruction as it was passing through the 335.4 sq.ft. area of the shop with height of 11 ft. 10 inches defined in the sale deed and purchased by respondent Rakesh. The right of purchaser to use that entire area with its full height cannot be obstructed to provide access to the seller as well as present petitioner-plaintiff and other tenants. The purchaser, apparently, with the consent of seller has provided alternative way to the present petitioner-plaintiff and other tenants including the landlord and seller himself for the first floor premises and, in the opinion of this Court, the suit filed by the plaintiff itself was misconceived. 5. Be that as it may, in the opinion of this Court, removal of staircase and making entire area available for the shop on the ground floor level could not be restrained by the courts below. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. The interim relief granted by the courts below is vacated and petitioner-plaintiff as well as seller and other tenants shall be free to use alternative way provided by the respondent-defendant. Copy of this order be sent to the opposite side and trial court forthwith.Petition dismissed. *******