PURSHOTTAMBHAI T PARMAR Vs. HIRALAL PURSHOTTAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PURSUANT to the order passed by this Court today in Civil Application No. 5656/06, the legal heirs of respondents are permitted to be impleaded as party and Mr. Kakkad has appeared for the legal heirs of the respondent.

(2.) THE short facts of the case appears to be that the original respondent was the tenant who has occupied the premises pursuant to the agreement between the brother Tribhovanbhai Parmar, i. e. uncle of the petitioner. It appears that the property thereafter was partitioned between the uncle of the petitioner and his father Tribhovanbhai Parmar. The father of the petitioner received property including the premises which is in occupation of the original respondent. It appears that thereafter, the father of the petitioner partly sold half of the portion of the premises to the petitioner, but the location of the latrine/toilet was at a place inside the premises purchased by the petitioner from his father. Consequently, the petitioner insisted his exclusive right over the toilet and resisted the use of toilet by original respondent in capacity as the tenant. As there was resistance and the petitioner wanted to make construction of some wall, the original respondent preferred Civil Misc. Application No. 74/83 before the learned Civil Judge under Section 24 of the Bombay Rent Act for restoration of essential service, i. e. toilet.

(3.) THE learned Civil Judge ultimately, vide order dated 21. 01. 1993, allowed the application of the original respondent and directed for restoration of the essential service to the applicant-original respondent and his family and the original opponent-petitioner herein was directed not to interfere the use of the latrine by the original respondent and his family members being a part of the rented premises. The petitioner carried the matter in revision before the learned District Judge being Civil Revision Application No. 1/93 and the learned District Judge ultimately, after hearing both the sides, dismissed the revision vide order dated 22. 11. 1994 and confirmed the order of the learned Civil Judge. It is under these circumstances, the present petition before this Court.