JUDGMENT Rajnish Kumar, J. Heard Shri M.A. Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Anurag Narain Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 7 and Shri Anuj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.8. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the courts concerned. 2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30.08.2023 passed by respondent No.1- Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Hardoi in Misc. Civil Appeal No.15 of 2023 (Rizwan Khan and another v. Smt. Nita Singh and others), by means of which the order dated 05.08.023 passed in Regular Suit No.251 of 2022 (Rizwan Khan v. Smt. Neeta Singh and others) passed by respondent No.2-Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hardoi has been affirmed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that shop No.97/15 situated in Mohalla, Line Purwa, Hemgarh Bhawan, Civil Lines, Hardoi was let out to the father of the petitioners Mohd. Abrar Khan by the respondent Nos.3 to 7. After his death, the petitioners are in possession of the said shop and paying the regular rent to respondent Nos.3 to 7 and carrying on the business in the names of M/s. Shahjahanpur Pipe House and Shahjahanpur Pipe Store. Respondent Nos.3 to 7 got a notice dated 06.10.2022 issued from respondent No.8 in their name for demolition of the shops in house No.97 on the ground that they are in dilapidated condition, whereas shop of the petitioners is not in dilapidated condition. One of the tenants of the adjacent shop in the house in question, Raja Bux Singh preferred an application to respondent No.8 on the ground that the shop is not in dilapidated condition, therefore, appropriate action may be taken after an inquiry. On which a report was submitted after spot inspection by the Junior Engineer that the shop is not in dilapidated condition and accordingly no action has been taken against him. Whereas, the petitioners were being threatened to demolish the shop and vacate the premises, therefore, the petitioners approached the Civil Court by means of Regular Suit No.251 of 2022 with a prayer not to evict the petitioners except in accordance with law with an application for interim injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151. Whereas, the petitioners were being threatened to demolish the shop and vacate the premises, therefore, the petitioners approached the Civil Court by means of Regular Suit No.251 of 2022 with a prayer not to evict the petitioners except in accordance with law with an application for interim injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151. Initially an interim injunction was granted in favour of the petitioners on 21.10.2022 and the commission was also directed to be issued, but no commission has taken place. In the meantime, after exchange of the pleadings, the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC was considered and rejected by means of the order dated 05.08.2023 without considering that the commission has not taken place and the report submitted in favour of Raja Bux Singh and on the ground that the proceedings for eviction has been instituted by respondent Nos.3 to 7 before the competent authority. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the order dated 05.08.2023, which has also been dismissed without considering the aforesaid facts and merely on the ground that the proceedings for eviction have been instituted. 4. The submission is that once the proceedings have been instituted for eviction, the petitioners cannot be evicted without disposal of the same in the garb of the notice dated 06.10.2022, therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be set-aside. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies on Govind Das v. Additional District Judge/Special Judge and others; 2013 (31) LCD 688 and Ashik Ali v. Harigen; 2016 All. C.J. 221. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 7 submits that though the petitioners have inherited the tenancy from their father, but since they have started business in the names of M/s. Shahjahanpur Pipe House and Shahjahanpur Pipe Store, therefore, it amounts to the sub-letting by the petitioners, which he could not have done, therefore, he is not entitled for any relief. He further submits that on account of dilapidated condition of the shop in question and the other adjacent shops, the notice was issued by respondent No.8/Nagar Palika Parishad, Hardoi on 06.10.2022 to the respondent Nos.3 to 7. He further submits that on account of dilapidated condition of the shop in question and the other adjacent shops, the notice was issued by respondent No.8/Nagar Palika Parishad, Hardoi on 06.10.2022 to the respondent Nos.3 to 7. Raja Bux Singh had preferred a representation to the authorities on the ground that his shop has been newly reconstructed, therefore, the appropriate action may be taken after inquiry and after an inquiry made by the Junior Engineer, it was found that his shop is not in dilapidated condition, therefore, no further action has been taken against him. Whereas, on the basis of the aforesaid notice dated 06.10.2022, the petitioners instead of challenging the said notice before any competent forum or court, had filed suit for permanent injunction. However, during pendency of the suit, the proceedings for eviction have been instituted against the petitioners, which is pending before the competent court/authority, therefore, the prayer made in the regular suit has rendered infructuous because once the proceedings have been instituted, it is apparent that the respondents have made their intention clear that the petitioner would be evicted only in accordance with law. So far as the notice dated 06.10.2022 is concerned, that is under Section 263 of the U.P. Municipality Act, 1916, which provides the power to the municipality for the prevention of danger from ruinous buildings, unprotected wells, etc. Therefore, to say that the petitioner is being evicted by means of the aforesaid notice not in accordance with law is not correct. The petitioners have not challenged the said notice till date. The trial court, after considering the pleadings and the fact that the proceedings have been instituted for eviction of the petitioners, has rightly dismissed the application for interim relief under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC in accordance with law. He further submits that during the last rains, most of the shops have fallen, on account of which out of 19 shops, 14 tenants have vacated the shop including Raja Bux Singh. 6. On the basis of above, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned orders have rightly been passed in accordance with law and there is no illegality or error in them. He relies on Matawar Prasad v. District Judge Shravasti and others; 2020 (139) ALR 622; 2020 (8) ADJ 652 . 7. 6. On the basis of above, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned orders have rightly been passed in accordance with law and there is no illegality or error in them. He relies on Matawar Prasad v. District Judge Shravasti and others; 2020 (139) ALR 622; 2020 (8) ADJ 652 . 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.8 submits that on account of the dilapidated condition of the shop in question along with the adjacent shops situated in house No.97, a notice was issued to the owner of the house, i.e., respondent No.7 on 06.10.2022. The said notice has never been challenged by the petitioners. They have also not preferred any application before the competent authority of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Hardoi in the matter. The proceedings for eviction have already been instituted by the owner of the house against the petitioners, which has nothing to do with the notice issued to the petitioners, which is a statutory notice under Section 263 of the Municipality Act, 1916 on the ground that the shops are in dilapidated condition. So far as the application of Raja Bux Singh is concerned, the same was considered and a report had come that the shop is not in a dilapidated condition. His averment was also that his shop was reconstructed. There is no such report in favour of petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit of the same. Even otherwise, after institution of eviction proceedings against the petitioner the prayer made in the suit has rendered infructuous. 8. On the basis of above, learned counsel for respondent No.8 submits that the impugned orders have rightly been passed by the trial court as well as appellate courts and there is no illegality or error in the impugned orders. 9. Having considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the records. 10. As averred by the petitioners that the shop in question, i.e., 97/15 was let out to Mohd. Abrar- father of the petitioner on monthly rent of Rs.800/- in the year 1998 and after his death the petitioners have inherited the tenancy, which was acknowledged by respondent No.7. The petitioners are paying rent regularly and no rent is due. The rent has been paid up to September, 2022. Abrar- father of the petitioner on monthly rent of Rs.800/- in the year 1998 and after his death the petitioners have inherited the tenancy, which was acknowledged by respondent No.7. The petitioners are paying rent regularly and no rent is due. The rent has been paid up to September, 2022. The petitioners are carrying on the business of pipe and sanitary in the names of M/s. Shahjahanpur Pipe House and Shahjahanpur Pipe Store. 11. A notice dated 06.10.2022 was issued to respondent No.7, i.e., owner of the shops in question in house No.97 situated at Mohalla, Line Purwa, Hardoi on the ground that the shops are in a dilapidated condition and likely to fall. On account of which, there may be loss of lives, therefore, he may get it demolished by his own means, failing which, appropriate action would be taken against him. It appears that the petitioners, after the aforesaid notice, filed Regular Suit No.251 of 2022 for permanent injunction, with the following prayers:- 12. One of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the said notice was not served on the petitioners, therefore, they could not have challenged the same, but the pleadings made in the plaint, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure No.1, indicates that the suit was filed after the notice. Even otherwise from perusal of order dated 21.10.2022 passed by trial court it appears that the said notice was filed by the petitioner. 13. In view of above, it is apparent that on the basis of the aforesaid notice, the petitioners had approached the Civil Court only with a prayer not to evict the petitioners except in accordance with law. Considering the same, initially an interim injunction was granted on 21.10.2022 and the commission was also issued. It appears that thereafter, the pleadings were exchanged, in which it has come before the court that the owner of the house, i.e., respondent Nos.3 to 7 have instituted the proceedings for eviction against the petitioners before the competent court, therefore, after considering the pleadings and affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, the trial court passed the order dated 05.08.2022 rejecting the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC. The application has been rejected on the ground that since the proceedings for eviction have already been instituted, the respondents have cleared their intention that the petitioners would not be evicted except in accordance with law. So far as the notice dated 06.10.2022 is concerned, the trial court has rightly observed that the same has been given on the ground that it is in a dilapidated condition, therefore, on account of falling of the shop during the intervening period, if any loss () is made it would be a irreparable loss. The relevant portion i.e. paragraph 9 of the order dated 05.08.2022 is extracted herein-below:- 14. The petitioner had preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order dated 05.08.2022. The appellate court has also dismissed the appeal considering that the proceedings for eviction have been instituted and the petitioners had appropriate remedy under the regular provision against the notice. Admittedly, no remedy has been availed by the petitioners. The petitioners have not challenged the notice till date rather a wrong plea has been taken before this Court that since the notice was not served on the petitioner, therefore, he could not have challenged the same, whereas as observed above, the petitioners had knowledge of the notice. 15. So far as the judgements relied by the learned counsel for the parties are concerned, it is not in dispute that in case there is prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in favour of the plaintiffs, they are entitled for the interim injunction, but here is a case where all the three are not in favour of the petitioners. The claim of the petitioners in the regular suit is only for not evicting them except in accordance with law, in regard to which the proceedings have already been instituted by the respondents no.3 to 7 clarifying their intention of evicting the petitioners only in accordance with law. So far as the notice under Section 263 is concerned, it is a statutory notice on a different ground and not for eviction, which has not been challenged by the petitioner, therefore, in the garb of the said notice, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. Even otherwise the petitioners are not entitled for any relief on the basis of said notice due to danger to human life causing irreparable loss to human life, which may include the petitioners also. 16. Even otherwise the petitioners are not entitled for any relief on the basis of said notice due to danger to human life causing irreparable loss to human life, which may include the petitioners also. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioners produced a photograph and submits that shops are in good condition but after perusal of the photographs, which has been placed before this Court, this Court cannot decide as to whether the photographs are of the concerned shop or not and on the basis of front photographs it cannot be decided as to whether it is in dilapidated condition or not and the same has also not been placed on record. Therefore, the same has been returned to learned counsel for the petitioners. 17. In view of above and considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders have rightly been passed by the trial court and the appellate court in accordance with law after considering the plea of the parties and there is no illegality or error in them, which may call for any interference by this Court. The petition is misconceived and lacks of merit, which is liable to be dismissed. 18. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.