Judgment

SHELAT, J. :- By a deed of lease, dated May 5, 1906, the predecessor-in-title of the respondent let out to the appellant s father an open portion of land measuring 26 ft. x 225 ft. out of a larger plot. The lease was for constructing building and for a period of 30 years certain at the annual rate of Rs. 130/-. The lease contained, inter alia, the following :

"Even after the prescribed time limit, I shall have a right to keep my structure on the leased out land, so long as I like, and I shall be paying to you the rent every year as stated above. You will have no right to increase the rent and I shall also not pay it, myself and my heirs shall use this land in whetever manner we please. After the lease period, we shall, if we like remove our building right from the foundation and vacate your land. In case we remove our structure before the stipulated period, we shall be liable to pay to you, the rent for all the thirty years, as agreed to above .......... In case I were to sell away the building, which I shall be constructing on the above land, to anyone else, the purchaser shall be bound by all the terms in this lease-deed. ........" The trouble between the parties started when the respondent commenced construction on the rest of the land in a fashion so as to be in close vicinity to the western boundary of the leased land to house an industry, called Sudha Industries.

2. The appellant filed the suit in 1958, out of which this appeal arises, urging that the said lease was a permanent lease, that buildings had been constructed on the leased land partly in 1906, and the rest in 1909 and 1922, that the said plot of land was subsequently demarcated into two survey numbers, 94 and 93, that a strip of land, 4 ft. in width and measuring 650 sq. ft. immediately to the west of survey No. 94 and forming part of survey No. 93 was covered by the said lease and was in his possession as part of the1eased land or was acquired by him as accession. Pending the suit the appellant amended the plaint asserting that the portion let out under the said deed of lease was 5850 sq, ft. in the aggregate, which included the said strip of land, and annexed a new plan showing details of the land which according to him was leased out under the said deed.

3. Out of the structures put up by the appellant s father, the central building, as shown in the plan produced by the appellant, has windows on the ground, first and second floors, all opening on the western side. The caves of that building protrude on that side by about 2 1/4 ft. with the result that the rain water falls over the said strip of land. According to the plaint, there is a drain partly in plot No. 94 and partly over the said strip of land which carries the entire waste water from the said building. According to the appellant, the said construction made by the respondent shut off light and air which he had been enjoying from the aforesaid windows. He had other complaints also to make and claimed amongst other things a declaration that the said strip of land was part of the leased land covered by the said deed, or in the alternative, that he had acquired it by way of accession, and prayed for a permanent injunction against shutting off light and air through the said windows and interference with his rights over the said strip of land either as the lessee thereof or as and by way of easements over it. The respondent s answer to the suit briefly was that the appellant was not entitled to the said strip of land either as falling under the said lease or as accession. The respondent also denied that the appellant was entitled to any of the reliefs claimed by him, that the said lease was not a permanent lease but was for a period of 30 years in the first instance, but being a lease for constructing buildings thereon and being transferable, could at best be for the lifetime of the lessee, the appellant s father. He also averred that part of the land comprised in plot No. 93 used to 1880 be let out