JUDGMENT : CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, J. 1. The present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is maintained by the petitioner, against the order dated 22.07.2017, passed by leaned District Judge, Hamirpur, in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 09 of 2016, whereby the status quo order, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Court No. II, Hamirpur, in CMA No. 479/2015, dated 24.02.2016 has been set aside. 2. Briefly stating facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner, who is the plaintiff before the learned trial Court (hereinafter to be called as “the plaintiff”) filed a civil suit before the learned trial Court, under Section 34, 38 and 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the present respondents No. 1 & 2 from interfering and disconnecting the electricity meter No. HC 2000268, installed in the premises in his possession as a tenant, existing over the land, comprised in Khata No. 88 min, Khatauni No. 143, Khasra No. 725, measuring 08.55 square meter, situated in Up mohal Hamirpur, Tappa Bajuri, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, H.P., till he is evicted in due course of law. As per the plaintiff, he was inducted as a tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 70/- by the predecessor-in-interest of defendant No. 1, late Sh. Roshan Lal. Now Roshan Lal has expired and pursuant to his death, his estate has been inherited by his sons Raj Kumar and Ravi Kumar, vide mutation No. 1064, dated 07.09.2015. It has been alleged that there is an electricity meter No. HC 2000268 installed in the premises in the name of defendant No. 2 and the defendants, in connivance with each other, are bent upon to disconnect the same with a view to evict and dispossess the plaintiff from the demised premises. As the plaintiff is still paying monthly rent regularly alongwith electricity expenses, therefore, the defendants are liable to be restrained from disconnecting electricity meter No. HC 20000268 from the demised premises, till the plaintiff is evicted in due course of law. 3. Defendant No. 1 by filing written statement, raised preliminary objections qua maintainability, cause of action and suppression of material facts. 3. Defendant No. 1 by filing written statement, raised preliminary objections qua maintainability, cause of action and suppression of material facts. On merits, it has been averred that the shop in dispute has fallen in his share in the family settlement and the plaintiff has not paid the rent after the demise of his father and as the dispute is between tenant and landlord, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. 4. Similarly, defendant No. 2 by filing written statement, raised preliminary objection quo jurisdiction of the Civil Court. On merits, it has been averred that the electricity meter No. HC 2000268 is in his name and since he ceased to be the owner of the suit property, therefore, he approached defendants No. 3 & 4 to disconnect the electricity meter, in order to prevent the misuse by the plaintiff or other persons. 5. Defendants No. 4 & 5 have also filed written statement and raised preliminary objection qua maintainability, cause of action, estoppels, locus standi and jurisdiction. On merits, it has been averred that defendant No. 2, being the holder of electricity meter installed in the demised premises, moved an application, seeking its disconnection after he ceased to be the owner of the property and they are duty bound to disconnect the meter, if asked by its holder. 6. Besides civil suit, the plaintiff also filed an application, under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2, read with Section 151 CPC, for grant of interim injunction, restraining the defendants, their agents, servants and assignees from interfering, disconnecting and removing electricity meter No. HC 2000268, installed in the demised premises, which was allowed by the learned trial Court, vide its order, dated 24.02.2016 and directed the parties to maintain status quo qua nature, possession, construction and alienation over the suit land till the disposal of the main suit. Feeling aggrieved, defendants No. 1 & 2 challenged the said order before the learned first Appellate Court and learned first Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 22.07.2017, set aside the status quo order of learned trial Court with the observation that since the plaintiff has remedy under H.P. Urban Rent Control, Act, 1987, therefore, no injunction could have been granted and defendant No. 2 cannot be prevented from getting the electricity meter disconnected from the demised premises after he ceased to be the owner of the same. Hence the present petition. 7. Hence the present petition. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned lower Appellate Court, without the application of mind, has set aside the interim order, passed by the learned trial Court, and, therefore, the order passed by the learned lower Appellate Court is required to be set aside and interim order, passed by learned trial Court is required to be affirmed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments has placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lakshmi alias Bhagyalakshmi & anr. Vs. E. Jayaram (D) by Lr., (2013) 2 Civil Court Cases 91. 9. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2 has argued that although the petitioner has a right under Section 11 of the Urban Rent Control Act against the owner, however as he is not paying any rent to the owner, his suit is not maintainable and the order, passed by the learned lower Appellate Court is in accordance with law, needs no interference and the present petition deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 3 & 4 has also prayed for dismissal of the present petition. 10. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, this Court has gone through the record in detail. 11. From the record, it is clear that the premises earlier belongs to Roshan Lal and Brahm Dass, after family partition took place in the year 2012-13, came to the possession of present respondent No. 1, Raj Kumar. The factum of landlord and tenant has been admitted by the defendants. As far as defendants No. 3 & 4 are concerned, their case is that as the original owner Brahm Dass has applied for the disconnection of aforesaid electricity meter and as it was in his name, they have no other option, but to disconnect the same. 12. As far as the plaintiff is concerned, he is tenant in the demised premises and needs electricity for running the business of his shop and if the said electricity meter is allowed to be disconnected, the applicant will suffer irreparable loss. 12. As far as the plaintiff is concerned, he is tenant in the demised premises and needs electricity for running the business of his shop and if the said electricity meter is allowed to be disconnected, the applicant will suffer irreparable loss. Further the plaintiff has proved his possession in the demised premises/shop and prime facie case at this stage, appears to be in his favour. So, this Court holds that if defendants No. 3 & 4 will disconnect the electricity connection in the name of Brahm Dass, they are required immediately to provide the electricity connection in the name of the plaintiff, without waiting for the no objection on behalf of the defendants and in case, the plaintiff completes all necessary formalities, defendants No. 3 & 4 will provide electricity meter to him within a period of three days positively, from the date of completion of the formalities. It is made clear that the plaintiff will be liable to pay the dues for the electricity to defendants No. 3 & 4, which will be consumed. 13. In view of the aforesaid terms, the petition stands disposed of. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 2nd May, 2018.Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of.