RAMDHIRAJ LAXMAN DHOBI Vs. RAMDAS BEHARI DHOBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal and Civil Revision Application are taken together and decided by a common judgment, as the issue involved is about grant of injunction. There are two proceedings. One is filed by the landlord and another is filed by the tenant. In order to avoid confusion, the parties are referred to their original status as a landlord and tenants.

(2.) Both the landlord and the tenants are Dhobis by occupation. There is no dispute that the landlord had created tenancy in respect of one plot situated at Survey No. 163, Dahanukar Wadi, Kandivali (West) admeasuring 6296.66 sq. yards in favour of the tenants along with the present tenant. There are other 12 tenants at Dhobhighat and also there are three water tanks. There is open space, which was used for drying the clothes by all the tenants. The room situated at Survey No. 163 was let out in the year 1963 for Rs. 30/-. Thereafter, the landlord prohibited the tenants from using the plot for drying the clothes.

(3.) It is the case of the landlord that the money was paid towards rent for using the plot situated at Survey No. 163 and the same amount was paid towards water charges for the use of water tanks. The open land was used by all the tenants with the permission of the landlord for the purpose of drying the clothes. It is pleaded that the tenants have right in that open land and, therefore, they should be prohibited from using the open space for drying the clothes. The landlord had filed S.C.Suit No. 7192 of 1982 against 12 tenants including the present tenant in the City Civil Court, Mumbai for permanent injunction. The relief sought by the landlord is that the tenants be restrained from interfering with peaceful possession of the landlord over the plot situated at Survey No. 163, Dahanukar Wadi, Kandivali. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Mumbai decreed the Suit No. 7191 of 1982 on 22nd July, 1983 and directed the tenants not to interfere with peaceful possession, use and occupation of the suit plot of the landlord. Against the said judgment and decree, the present tenant has filed First Appeal No. 104 of 1994.