NUTAN MECHANICAL WORKS Vs. MAHANT RAMDEVDASJI GURU J

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the tenant who is using the open piece of land as a land appurtenant to the rented premises can approach the Small Causes Court against the obstruction of such right by the landlord or whether he has to go to regular court for such relief is the issue involved in the present revision application.

(2.) . The present revision application has been filed by the petitioner- original plaintiff. The plaintiff had filed the suit being Rent Suit No.944/78 in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Small Causes Court at Surat. The case of the plaintiff in the said suit is that the suit land is situated on the southern side of the workshop of which the plaintiff is the tenant and the said land is included in the rented premises. According to the plaintiff the defendant is the landlord and owner of the property situated in ward no.7, Survey no.283. According to the plaintiff he is a tenant of constructed portion of one gala and open land situated on the southern side of one gala which is in the form of garage is rented to him at the rate of Rs.51.00p.m. The plaintiff is doing business of running work-shop of manufacturing heavy articles in the aforesaid constructed portion of the premises. It is his case that open land situated on the southern side of the garage is also in his possession as a tenant. It is his specific case that without using open land it is not possible for him to use the constructed portion of the premises which the plaintiff is occupying as a tenant. It is his case that he is using the aforesaid open space situated on the southern side of his garage for the purpose of bringing heavy articles, gas cylinder etc, in substance it is his case that without using the aforesaid passage of open land it is not possible for him to use the constructed garage portion of which he is the tenant. The defendant tried to make certain construction in the said open space and therefore according to the plaintiff he is trying to evict him from the rented premises. Hence the aforesaid suit for declaration and injunction was instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that alternatively, if it is held that he is not the tenant of the open land situated on the southern side of the workshop, the plaintiff has got right of passage for brining goods, and taking away his goods from the workshop through the aforesaid open space and therefore the defendant has no right to close the said open space by making construction over the same. On the aforesaid grounds the plaintiff had filed the said suit for declaration and injunction.

(3.) The defendant appeared in the suit by filing his written statement at Ex.16. He denied the averments made in the plaint by the plaintiff. The defendant admitted that the plaintiff is the owner of the constructed portion i.e. garage. However, he denied that the defendant is the tenant of the open land. He denied other averments made in the plaint. It was the case of the defendant that the open land was of the ownership of the Corporation and that the same was sold to the defendant by the Corporation under the Town Planning Scheme. It was stated by the defendant that while making the construction he is going to keep some land open for the purpose of passage for the plaintiff for coming and going to the workshop. It was also contended that the rent court has no jurisdiction to decide the suit on the aforesaid grounds the suit of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendant.