JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. By means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 1.4.2013 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Saharanpur in Original Suit No.163 of 2013, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for grant of temporary injunction as well as the order dated 25.7.2015 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.10, Saharanpur dismissing the Misc. Appeal No.79 of 2013. 3. The plaintiff-petitioner instituted Original Suit No.163 of 2013 alleging that he alongwith his brother defendant no.3, were joint tenants of a shop on behalf of defendants no.1 and 2. It is further alleged that his brother defendant no.3, after taking his share, has relinquished the tenancy rights and since thereafter, the petitioner is continuing in the shop as the sole tenant. A temporary injunction was sought for restraining the defendant-landlords from interfering in his possession. 4. The trial court by order dated 1.4.2013 rejected the application for temporary injunction holding that the petitioner failed to establish prima facie case in his favour. It has been held by the trial court that in Original Suit No.737 of 2008 filed by the petitioner, he accepted the agreement dated 10.5.2008 between him and his brother-defendant no.3, whereby a piece of vacant land came to the share of the petitioner, whereas the disputed shop, which is schedule B property of the said case, had gone to the share of Sushil Kumar-defendant no.3. It has further been noted that as a result of the said compromise, defendant no.3, who became exclusive tenant of the disputed shop, surrendered his tenancy rights and handed over the possession of the shop to defendant-landlords, who on 1.2.2013 got their suit for ejectment dismissed. It has also been held that the petitioner had not disputed that a piece of vacant land had fallen to his share in pursuance of the compromise dated 10.5.2008 and thus, the trial court has found that the family settlement, which had been accepted in Original Suit No.737 of 2008, was also duly implemented. The findings have been affirmed by the appellate court. 5. After considering the findings recorded by the courts below, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error or perversity, which may warrant interference with the impugned orders in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution. The findings have been affirmed by the appellate court. 5. After considering the findings recorded by the courts below, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error or perversity, which may warrant interference with the impugned orders in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petitioner very fairly conceded that the compromise, which had taken place in the suit, has not been denied by the petitioner before the courts below. 6. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the case set up by the defendants-landlords that Lalit Kumar is in possession of the disputed shop, is incorrect as Lalit Kumar is in possession of some other shop. 7. In the opinion of the Court, once the courts below have held that the petitioner had relinquished his tenancy rights and the disputed shop had fallen to the lot of his brother, in the family settlement dated 10.5.2008, which was accepted by the petitioner in the Original Suit No.737 of 2008 filed by him, the trial court was justified in refusing to grant temporary injunction. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.