LAWS(GJH)-1991-4-7

SHANTILAL UDAYCHAND BOHRA Vs. SUMAN BHAILAL PATEL

Decided On April 19, 1991
SHANTILAL UDAYCHAND BOHRA Appellant
V/S
SUMAN BHAILAL PATEL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interesting question of law that arises in the present revision application is whether the open space in the compound on the ground floor of (he building is "appurtenant" to the leased premises on the first floor; and denial of parking the tenant's vehicle in such open space of the compound would amount to curtailment or withdrawal of essential services, within the meaning of Sec. 24 of the Bombay Rent Act.

(2.) The petitioner, original plaintiff, is the tenant in respect of first floor premises of the bungalow, known as "Sapna" at 63, Haribhakti Colony, Baroda, on a monthly rent of Rs. 650.00. According to the evidence of the plaintifftenant at Exh. 39, the tenant has been using and occupying part of the first floor premises consisting of one leaving room, one dining room, one kitchen, one More room and two bed rooms, besides a lavatory and bathroom and chokdi to clean the utensils. There are two gates in the premises of the bungalow-one is small for personal entry and another is a big gate for vehicles, etc.

(3.) The petitioner-plaintiff filed a Rent Suit No. 272 of 1983 in the Small Causes Court at Baroda against the respondents herein, for declaration and permanent injunction that (1) the defendants have no light to remove or stop the electric motor for the purposes of water- fitted at the ground floor of the suit bungalow, (2) that defendants have no right to restrain the plaintiff from parking the plaintiff's car in the open space of the compound in the bungalow and (3) that the defendants be restrained from allowing the plaintiff to make use of the terrace of the suit bungalow. The Court at first instance, by its judgment and order dated 31/07/1984, partly decried the suit declaring that the defendants have no right to remove, stop or make ineffective the working of the electric motor on the ground floor for water purposes and ordered to issue permanent injunction accordingly. The teal court, however, disallowed the remaining two reliefs with regard to car parking and right to use the terrace of the bungalow.