JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, A.C.J. - Cmpmo No.4/2018 By way of the instant petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, defendantspetitioners (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) lay challenge to the order dated 6.6.2017, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.6, Shimla, in CMA No.32- 6 of 2017, titled as Onkar Thakur v. Kewal Ram Shandil & another, as affirmed by the learned District Judge, Shimla, vide order dated 16.9.2017, passed in defendants'' appeal, being CMA No.36-S/14 of 2017, titled as Kewal Ram Shandil & another v. Onkar Thakur. 2. Plaintiff-Respondent Onkar Thakur (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against defendant Kewal Ram Shandil and his wife Smt. Maina Shandil, praying that the defendants be restrained from interfering with the plaintiff''s possession over the property comprising of two rooms bearing No.3 & 4, one kitchen, one bath and a toilet (common) on the first floor of doubled storeyed house, commonly known as ''Onkar Cottage'' near Kamla Nehru Hospital, Shimla. Also, a prayer has been made to restrain the defendants from disconnecting the water supply, electricity supply and creating obstruction in the use of toilet. 3. Plaintiff is a tenant in the premises. On the other hand, the defendants claim to have purchased the property from Shri Vinod Mangoo, vide Sale Deed dated 6.8.2016. However, the plaintiff has placed on record an affidavit of the vendor, alleging fraud played by the defendants, in including the rooms in question, as also the common toilet, as part of the sale transaction. 4. The Courts below, by referring to and relying upon the material placed on record, including affidavit of the original owner, partly allowed the plaintiff''s prayer for restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession of the area, subject matter of the list, till conclusion of the trial. Also, the toilet, common in nature, on the first floor, is permitted to be used by the plaintiff. 5. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the view taken by the Courts below. Significantly, the Appellate Court appointed a Local Commissioner, a practicing Advocate, who, after ascertaining the factual position, prepared his report. It has come on record that the plaintiff is in possession of the disputed area and he resides therein. 5. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the view taken by the Courts below. Significantly, the Appellate Court appointed a Local Commissioner, a practicing Advocate, who, after ascertaining the factual position, prepared his report. It has come on record that the plaintiff is in possession of the disputed area and he resides therein. Also, if the common toilet, on the first floor, is not allowed to be used, then the premises cannot be used for residential purpose, for there is no facility of any other toilet. 6. From the record, prima facie, it cannot be shown that the view taken by the Courts below is wholly erroneous, perverse or illegal. After all, the Courts have found the plaintiff to have prima facie established all the three essential ingredients, necessitating grant of interim relief of injunction. Balance of convenience, irreparable loss and injury, if the interim relief is not granted, and prima facie case, is in favour of the plaintiff. 7. To contend that the suit is not maintainable and the tenant ought to have filed a petition under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, to say the least is preposterous, for it is not a landlord-tenant dispute, but a dispute between two neighbours, one of whom is a tenant. Also, to contend that the nature of the suit is defective, inasmuch as no relief of mandatory injunction to bring down the construction, allegedly, unauthorizedly and illegally raised by the defendants, is also misconceived. Eventually, what relief is to be granted is for the Court to see, after the trial is over. If the plaintiff fails to establish his right of user of the toilet, then there would be no need to seek such prayer and if the suit was to otherwise fail, for it being defective in nature, then it is to the peril of the plaintiff, which view the trial Court can take only on conclusion of the evidence. 8. In this view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be said to be unreasonable, illegal or perverse, warranting interference by this Court. 9. For all the aforesaid reasons, present petition (CMPMO No.4/2018), devoid of merit, is dismissed. CMPMO No.44/2018 10. 8. In this view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be said to be unreasonable, illegal or perverse, warranting interference by this Court. 9. For all the aforesaid reasons, present petition (CMPMO No.4/2018), devoid of merit, is dismissed. CMPMO No.44/2018 10. Defendants lay challenge to the order dated 30.12.2017, passed by Civil Judge, Court No.6, Shimla, in Case No.24-1 of 2017, titled as Onkar Singh Thakur v. Kewal Ram Shandil & another, whereby they stand directed to provide approach and restore water supply to the toilet as also to the premises of the plaintiff, in order to make it functional and operational. 11. Operative part of the order reads as under: "11. In the case in hand, the Court is satisfied that the respondents have not provided or made arrangements for the applicant to use the toilet in question and have also not restore (sic: restored) the water supply to the premises of the applicant and have thereby violated the orders passed by this Court. 12. It is pertinent to mention here that assess (sic: access) to the toilet is a basic human right. It is a basic amenity essential in (sic: for) a human being for living a life of dignity. The rights of the parties qua the toilet in question and the water supply are yet to be determined. However, the respondent was directed during the pendecncy (sic: pendency) of the case to make necessary arrangement for the applicant for usage of the aforementioned toilet which order has not been complied by the respondents. 13. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case in its entirety, this Court finds no hesitation in allowing the present application. 14. The respondents are hereby directed forthwith to make necessary arrangements for providing approach to the applicant for usage of the toilet in question on the first floor of Onkar Cottage and also to restore the water supply to the premises of the applicant till the final of the suit. Furthermore, SHO Chhota Shimla, H.P. is directed to render police assistance to the applicant towards the execution of order dated 06.06.2017 rendered by this Court in the present case. Application stands disposed of and it after needful be tagged with the main case file for record." 12. Furthermore, SHO Chhota Shimla, H.P. is directed to render police assistance to the applicant towards the execution of order dated 06.06.2017 rendered by this Court in the present case. Application stands disposed of and it after needful be tagged with the main case file for record." 12. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the same, for the reasoning adopted by the trial Court cannot be said to be illegal, perverse or erroneous. After all, water, as a basic necessity, is required for making the toilet functional and useable, as also for sustenance of life. 13. Hence, it cannot be said that the impugned order is unreasonable, illegal or perverse, warranting interference by this Court. 14. For all the aforesaid reasons, present petition (CMPMO No.44/2018), devoid of merit, is dismissed. 15. Any observation made hereinabove shall have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the main case. Parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the Court below on 24.8.2018. 16. Trial is expedited. Petitioners shall produce the entire evidence at their responsibility. Of course, for official/outstation witnesses, assistance of the process serving agency shall be obtained. Both the petitions stand disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.