NEMICHAND SASMAL Vs. JAINUDDIN ALLIHUSEIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed by the plaintiffs against concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the two courts below dismissing their suit as also their appeal therefrom.

(2.) Hearing rival submission of the respective Counsel and going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no such merit in this petition so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in its limited and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(3.) The petitioners, who claim to the tenants of different premises leased to them respectively at different times and forming part of the suit buildings, also now claim to be tenants of the terrace as also of the air space above it. Courts below have for good and sound reasons rejected this claim. It is not possible to take of the matter a view different from the one rightly taken by the two courts below. There is also no such error apparent on the face of the record as to warrant interference. Tenants of different premises leased at different times and forming part of a multi-storeyed building cannot, without anything else, claim to have ipso facto become simultaneously the tenants also of the terrace and of the air space above it. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that at the time of the original separate lettings respectively to each of them, there was also a letting or a lease of the terrace to each of them. The Transfer of Property Act which generally governs the relationship of landlord and tenant and the leases between them, also does not provide for tenants of various different parts of demised premises of a multi-storeyed building to also ipso facto and without any lease or letting thereof become tenants also of the terrace or of the air space above it. No provision from the Transfer of Property Act was shown to confer such a right.