Judgment G.B. Shah, J.—Heard learned advocate Mr. R.K. Shah for the applicant-original Defendant/Appellant No. 1. 2. This application is preferred by the applicant under Section 29(2) of the Gujarat Rents, (Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control) Act, 1947 (for short, the ‘Rent Act’) challenging the order dated 09.08.2011 passed by the learned Appellate Bench of Small Cause Court, Ahmedabad in Appeal-From-Order No. 35 of 2011 below Exh.12 confirming the order dated 27.05.2011 passed by the learned Chamber Judge, Small Cause Court No. 3, Ahmedabad in HRP Civil Suit No. 493 of 2011 below Exh.6. 3. So far as the present Application is concerned, the short questions to be decided are whether the tenants who were using the supply of essential services are attached with the suit premises and whether such essential services have been withheld or cut-off by the landlord or not? 4. The facts of the present case are that the applicant is the landlord of the property situated on the land bearing Survey No. 479 near Ved Mandir, Kankariya Road, Ahmedabad, which is known as Ambika Nivas Vibhag-II. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are claiming tenancy right and, according to them, the essential services of the tenants have been terminated by the applicant and, therefore, they have filed HRP Civil Suit No. 493 of 2011 against the present applicant as well as Respondent Nos. 6 to 9. According to Respondent Nos. 1 to 5, the applicant has disconnected the water connection, drainage connection, latrine and chokdi connections attached with the drainage and, therefore, they have filed a suit against the present applicant. 5. As per the case of the applicant, the learned trial Judge, without considering the written statement, list of documents, report of Commissioner and map prepared by the Court Commissioner, has allowed application Exh.6 in HRP Civil Suit No. 493 of 2011 on 27.05.2011. The applicant has challenged the said order by preferring Appeal-From-Order No. 35 of 2011 under Section 29 of the Rent Act before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad and the said Bench has dismissed the appeal vide order dated 09.08.2011. 6. The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the trial courts have committed factual error by not considering the fact that the respondent No.1 is not residing at the tenanted premises but she is residing at Tenement No. 4/B, Ashapuri Ghodasar Co-op. 6. The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the trial courts have committed factual error by not considering the fact that the respondent No.1 is not residing at the tenanted premises but she is residing at Tenement No. 4/B, Ashapuri Ghodasar Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., Ghodasar, Ahmedabad, as she is having alternative accommodation. Moreover, notice dated 14.12.2009 was given by the applicant to Respondent No. 9 (original Defendant No. 5 of the suit) and the Civil Suit in this regard is also pending between them before the City Civil Court and, as the said respondent No.9 has motivated the tenants, HRP Civil Suit No. 493 of 2011 came to be filed against the applicant and the said aspect has not been considered by the Courts below. Further, the Courts below have not taken into consideration the photographs produced before the Court along with the list of documents and also have not considered the report of the Commissioner wherein, it is categorically mentioned that the respondent No. 1 is not in possession of the premises. It is also mentioned therein that separate toilet and latrines are attached with the rooms rented by the respondent No. 1. Lastly, the learned advocate submitted that if the interim prayer sought for by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in the suit is granted, it indirectly amounts to allowing the whole suit and, therefore, such a prayer, in the eye of law, cannot be granted and the Courts below have committed patent error by allowing the same. 7. I have carefully considered the entire documentary evidence produced by the applicant. Referring to the written statement dated 06.05.2011 submitted by the petitioner/original defendant Nos. 1 to 4 on 09.05.2011, it appears that they have impliedly admitted that they have closed some of chokdies/wash areas and taps at the ground floor which have been used by Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 tenants. It is also admitted that out of three latrines at ground floor, one latrine has also been closed. On perusal of the photographs produced by the applicant, it is revealed that the door of the latrine appears to have been completely closed by affixing a wooden stick in a vertical manner and the water taps of two wash areas have been removed. Referring to the report of the Commissioner, it appears that it supports the case of Respondent Nos. Referring to the report of the Commissioner, it appears that it supports the case of Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and it clearly transpires that one latrine as well as four chokdies/wash areas were found to have been closed. It also appears that there are number of tenants residing with their families in different portions of the suit premises and considering the total number of latrines and chokdies as well as wash areas, they appear to be quite adequate and useful in number and any act of forcibly closing the said wash areas and latrines is nothing else but the pressurize tactics of withholding the essential services which are attached not only to the suit premises but also with the tenancy rights of the persons residing in the suit premises. I have carefully perused order dated 27.05.2011 and judgment dated 09.08.2011 passed in HRP Civil Suit No. 493 of 2011 and Appeal-From-Order No. 35 of 2011 respectively. It appears that the learned trial court has properly discussed and considered that so far as the contentions of original plaintiff No.1 not residing in the suit premises and the original plaintiff No. 5 has obtained water supply in the tenanted premises are concerned, the separate litigation is still pending and it has no connection with the dispute raised by the plaintiffs i.e. present Respondent Nos. 1 to 5, and I find myself in complete agreement with the same. It also appears that the trial court has partly allowed the relief prayed for by Respondent Nos.1 to 5 and the relief with regard to use of terrace portion has been rejected. 8. It is the well settled legal principle that while granting the interim relief, the final relief of the suit should not be granted but, under the peculiar facts and circumstances, when the dispute is related to essential services, in my view, it can be granted. 9. In view of the above discussion, the trial courts are justified in partly allowing the interim injunction application filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. In my view, the Courts below have not committed any error in disallowing the other reliefs claimed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 with regard to use of terrace portion of the suit premises. Further, I find no merit and substance in the above referred submissions made by the learned advocate for the applicant. 1 to 5. In my view, the Courts below have not committed any error in disallowing the other reliefs claimed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 with regard to use of terrace portion of the suit premises. Further, I find no merit and substance in the above referred submissions made by the learned advocate for the applicant. I do not find any illegality in the order dated 27.05.2011 passed below Exh.6 in HRP Civil Suit No. 493 of 2011 as well as in the judgment dated 09.08.2011 passed in Appeal-From-Order No. 35 of 2011 by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad. 10. In my view, the conclusion arrived at by both the Courts below appears to be just, proper and reasonable. Hence, the present application deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage and accordingly, the same is dismissed. P P P P P