The word "appurtenant" in section 5(8) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 means relating or in conjunction with the premises, namely, building or part of a building. An open space is appurtenant to a building or part of a building if it is for the beneficial enjoyment of the building or part of the building let and is not available or cannot be used by other persons.

JUDGMENT - R.D. TULPULE, J.:---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.

4. The learned trial Judge framed an issue, which is Issue No. 5, in this behalf and it worded in this manner. "Does the defendant prove that he has right as a tenant of the suit premises to see the open space in between the suit premises for his trade?". He answered that issue in the affirmative, but said that the defendant "should not erect permanent structure therein". As a fact he found that the defendant has erected a permanent structure. In that view of the matter, he decreed the plaintiff's suit apparently holding that the open space was a part of the premises leased to the defendant.

5. Against this decision an appeal was carried by the tenant to the District Court, Satara, which was Civil Appeal No. 257 of 1974. The learned Assistant Judge, who heard that appeal allowed it by his judgment dated 21st February, 1978 and dismissed the suit. So far as the portion over which the permanent structure was constructed, he held that it was not a part of the leased premises though he agreed with the finding of the trial Judge that the structure erected was a permanent structure, since this erection of the structure was not on the premises which were let. In the view taken by the learned Assistant Judge, he dismissed the suit.

6. Aggrieved by that judgment and decree, the present petition is filed.

7. Mr. Dhorde, Advocate appearing for the petitioner pressed only one contention before me. His contention was that upon a true construction of the word "premises" and of what was let to the defendant the open space in between the shop and the godown which was leased to the defendant, must be held to be the premises let to the defendant within the meaning or the word "premises" as defined in section 5(8) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rent Act"). His contention was that the open space in between the shop and the godown was appurtenant to the premises which were let to the defendant, namely, the shop and the godown and, therefore, fall within the definition of the word "premises' in section 5(8) of the Rent Act. He relied, therefore, strongly upo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document