BHAGWANDAS HARGOBIND CHORASIA Vs. KANAIYALAL LILARAM AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The respondent herein filed suit and took out notice of Motion for interim reliefs for direction to remove the door constructed by the appellant in the common passage, which leads to the common washing place and common W.C. on the 1st floor and as described in the plaint annexed at Ex. A to the plaint and for temporary injunction restraining the appellant from preventing or obstructing the respondent from passing and re-passing through the common passage and there by not to obstruct the respondents from using the said common washing place and common W.C. The court below directed the appellant to keep open the said door and not to obstruct the respondents from using those common facilities. The said order is under challenge in this A.O.

(2.) The respondent No. 1 is the owner of the structure and occupies Room 11 on the 1st floor and Respondent No. 2 is a tenant on the 1st floor of Room 12. The appellant is a tenant of one Room 13. It is the chawsl like structure and there are common facilities of washing place and toilet on each floor which are situated in the common passage. The room of the appellant is in corner and the common facilities are located in front of his room.

(3.) It is the case of the respondents that all of a sudden in the month of March, 1984, appellant put up a door in such a manner so as to convert those common facilities of washing place and toilet for his exclusive use. Because of putting of the said door the Respondent No. 2 and his family members were deprived from using those common facilities. The Respondent No. 2 complained about this to Respondent No. 1 as landlord. It was pointed out that Respondent No. 1 has got toilet and bath room constructed in his room. But the Respondent No. 2 was deprived of this and so Respondent No. 1 asked the appellant about this who stated that door has been put up as repair work was going on and such, his friend, whose building has collapsed, put up some articles in the common passage and door was temporarily put up. The appellant promised to remove the same as soon as repair work was over. The building and the common facilities were repaired in June, 1984 and then Respondent No. 1 asked the appellant to remove the said door, the appellant started avoiding and declined inspite of request made by the Respondent No. 1 from time to time. This forced the Respondent No. 1 to give not ice to the appellant and also the Municipal Corporation pointing out the unauthorised work done by the appellant. The appellant sent a reply claiming exclusive right to use those facilities. It was alleged that the Respondent No. 2 having a room on the ground floor and can use the common facilities which are situated on the ground floor. The respondents pointed out that there is a small room admeasuring 6' x 21/2' under the stiar-case on the ground floor which is used by the Respondent No. 2 as a store room/sleeping or sitting room during the day time. It was pointed out that all the family members of the Respondent No. 2 used the common facilities on the first floor throughout and they are seriously handicapped and the reply given by the appellant was false. This required the respondents to file suit and take out not ice of Motion for interim reliefs.