M. Katju, J. - (1.) SUIT No. 353 of 1991 was filed by the petitioner for restraining the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 from making any constructions or alterations on the basis of a sanctioned map in respect, of property No. 64, Gandhi Road, Dehradun. The petitioner's case was that he was a tenant of one shop in the South -West corner of Laxmi Talkies of the said property, and that one shop was demolished in 1975 for which litigation is pending and the respondents tried to demolish the other two shops on 26/27 -7 -1991.
(2.) THE suit was filed on 19 -8 -1991 and a temporary injunction was granted for maintaining' status quo (Annexure 3 to the petition). The defendant No. 1 filed an appeal and the Appellate Court allowed the appeal on 25 -11 -1991 holding that the trial Court did not record any reasons.
(3.) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the grievance that while setting aside the order of the trial Court, the Appellate Court did not make any arrangement for maintaining status quo during the pendency of the case. Counter -affidavit and rejoinder -affidavit have been filed and I heard learned Counsels for the parties. In my opinion the impugned order is only an order of remand and hence it does not call for any interference. However, I am of the opinion that the trial Court should decide the temporary injunction matter within one month of production of a certified copy of this order. If any construction is raised during the pendency of the matter before the trial Court that will be subject to the decision of the trial Court and it will be at the risk of the landlord. It is raids clear that if the trial Court holds that the defendant illegally demolished the shop which was in the petitioner's possession, the trial Court should direct the defendants to remove any construction which they have made after such demolition or give possession to the plaintiff in a portion of such construction equal to his earlier accommodation. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is finally disposed of.;