1. The Appellant has challenged the judgment dated 22nd December, 2006 of the Bombay City Civil Court granting an injunction to the Respondent s against the Appellants and restraining the Appellants from constructing a compound wall in a part of the suit premises, putting up any permanent or temporary structure in the compulsory open space and using a particular compulsory open space which has to be left open to the skies under the Development Control Rules (DC Rules). There is no dispute between the parties in this Suit about any construction in the compulsory open space, other than the compound wall. There is also no dispute between the parties with regard to the access road, which is meant only for ingress and egress and is to be left open to the sky.

2. The Appellant contends that he is the tenant of the Respondent . He has filed a declaratory suit in the Bombay Small Causes Court (Rent Court) against the Respondent in 1985. The Respondent has filed a suit for eviction against him in 2001.

3. In his Declaratory Suit he has sought a declaration of tenancy which he got from the Respondent under an agreement executed in 1972. That suit is pending. He claims that, that agreement governs the right of parties with regard to the injunction applied for by the Respondent in the Suit filed in Bombay City Civil Court and hence, that Court would not have the inherent jurisdiction to try the suit and the Suit should have been filed only in a Small Causes Court, Bombay. He also claims on merits that the case for injunction was not made out by virtue of the oral agreement that has transpired between the parties.

4. The learned Judge in the impugned judgment has decided the question of jurisdiction of his Court as well as the merits of the case. The learned Judge has granted the injunction applied for to the Respondent. Hence, this Appeal

The only narrow question of law in this appeal is with regard to whether a suit for injunction in respect of certain constructions put up on the tenanted premises can be granted by the Civil Court. Besides this, the evidence led by the parties with regard to the construction put up as well as the user of the premises has to be considered. The copies of the entire evidence and document s including the plan in respect of the Respondent s' entire property are produced and hence, this Appeal is being disposed off at the admission stage itself.

6. The tenanted premises is one shed of 5000sq. ft. area and shown bounded in green on the plan which is a part of the record. Open space to the North East part of the property of the landlord shown in Yellow in the plan. The 10 ft. open access is shown in blue in the plan on record. The agreement of 1972 which is the admitted document between the parties shows not only the extent of the tenanted premises but the permitted user of the tenanted premises, in Clause 6(a) thus:- “ Clause 6(a): The selling Agents shall make available about 5000 sq. ft. of the area from the Industrial Shed belonging to the Selling Agents. The principal shall, subject to the Municipal Rules in that behalf, be free to use the open space on the North East side of the Shed leaving the 10 passage for access and egress, and to keep their articles, goods, and belongings and vehicles.”

7. Consequently it can be seen that the Appellant would be a tenant in respect of the indust rial shed admeasuring 5000 sq. ft belonging to the Respondent. The Appellant would also be entitled to use and to keep his articles etc in the open space on the North East side of the shed leaving a 10 ft passage for access and egress. A 10 ft. passage for access is to be kept open.

8. The Appellant constructed a compound wall without Municipal permission on the premises of the landlord near the open space tenanted to the Appellant for user and for keeping his articles. It is an admitted position that, that was constructed in about 1985 and was once got demolished by the Respondent s. It is, therefore, reconstructed. Th