CR No. 3082 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3082 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.5.2009 Resham Lal .. Petitioner v. Kulwant Kaur and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. B. S. Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the orders passed by the learned courts below, whereby the application for interim injunction filed by the petitioner along with the suit was partially declined. The petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking restrain against the respondents from interfering into his possession of the property and also from disconnecting the electric supply on the shop, which is in his possession as a tenant. Prayer for mandatory injunction directing the respondents to restore the electric supply, if disconnected during the pendency of the suit, was also made. The learned courts below finding that the petitioner was in possession of the property as a tenant, protected his possession. However, as regards electric supply, the petitioner-plaintiff admitted that the same was disconnected after filing of the suit and prayer in the suit having not been amended thereafter to claim relief of mandatory injunction, restoration thereof cannot be granted and further the petitioner had effective alternative remedy under Section 10 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, `the Act') to claim the relief prayed for. It is these orders, which are impugned in the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned courts below had gone wrong in observing that mandatory injunction had not been prayed for, whereas such a prayer is there in the suit filed. Once the respondents had disconnected the electric supply and there was a prayer for mandatory injunction directing them for restoration thereof, considering the urgency of the matter, interim mandatory injunction could very well be granted. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. In the suit originally filed, the petitioner had made CR No. 3082 of 2009 [2] an alternative prayer that in case his electric supply is disconnected during the pendency of the suit, mandatory injunction be issued directing the respondents to restore the same, which causes suspicion, as to why such a prayer was made at the initial stage. The admission of the petitioner-plaintiff before the the learned courts below is that electric supply was disconnected during the pendency of the suit. Admittedly, the petitioner is in possession of the property as a tenant and in terms of Section 10 of the Act, in case the landlord interferes with the amenities enjoyed by the tenant, the remedy with a tenant is to file application before the Rent Controller for restoration thereof. Once the petitioner has effective alternative remedy for the relief, which is sought in the suit, in my opinion, no illegality was committed by the learned courts below in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for interim relief. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 27.5.2009 mk