RUKHAMINIBAI RAMVILAS LAHOTI Vs. MURALIDHAR GOVINDRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the landlord of certain premises situate in the town of Karad, Satara District. The properties are known as City Survey Nos. 220/18 and 220/15. These two properties are apparently situate in a compound and are separate from each other. The property bearing City Survey No. 220/15 is in the rear or to the east of property CTS No.220/18. The two are separated by an open space in between which is apparently used by the different tenants of the two properties in question. There appear to be tenants in both the houses Nos. 220/18 and 220/15. It would appear from the map which is produced in the case Exh. 56 that the occupants and tenants occupying the rear building to CTS No. 220/18 have a passage of way or exit and entry to the western road by strip of land lying between the shop let to the defendant and plaintiffs other portion of the property.

(2.) The defendant runs a business of mineral oils and is a supplier and stockist thereof. He has a shop in property CTS No. 220/15 which faces the west and a godown in the rear building No. CTS 220/18. The godown and the shop face each other and the godown is accessible only from the open space.

(3.) The plaintiffs-landlords complained of the defendant having erected a permanent structure in that open space lying between the godown and the shop of the defendant and therefore, filed the present suit out of which this petition has arisen in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior, Division, Karad. That was Civil Suit No. 68 of 1971. Apart from the other grounds which were pressed into service for claiming possession from the defendant-tenant, one of the contentions was that the defendant has erected a permanent structure or construction on the premises leased to him. That was the only ground which survived and remained in the contest between the parties.