JUDGMENT :

(Prayer : The Civil Revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the order dated 01.10.2019 made in I.A No.1 of 2019 in O.S. No. 5235 of 2014 on the file of the learned XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.)

The plaintiff in O.S.No.5235 of 2014 on the file of the XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai has come forward with this Civil Revision petition challenging the order dated 01.10.2019 made in IA No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.5235 of 2014.

2. The plaintiff has filed the suit in OS No. 5235 of 2014 praying for the following reliefs:

i. For a mandatory injunction directing the defendant, his servants, agents, persons, authorized by them or claiming through them provide necessary and sufficient space for a car park in the common area so as to enable the plaintiff and his tenant at door no.G-5 to use and enjoy the common car park facility.

ii. For a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, his servants, agents, person, authorized by them or claiming through them from interfering or enjoying the car park in the common area available in the suit property.

iii. For a Declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to car parking space within the premises of Mohana Flat Owner’s Assn, situate at 96, Arcot Road, Virugambakkam, Chennai.

3. The sum and substance of the plaint averments is to the effect that the plaintiff has purchased one of the flats in Mohana apartments, No.96, Arcot Road, Virugambakkam, Chennai – 92 in the year 1995. According to the plaintiff, he is not residing in the flat due to his pre-occupation with his employee at Ahmedabad and therefore, he has authorized his brother through a general power of attorney, dated 17.08.1994, to deal with his property. On the strength of such power of attorney, his brother had let out the property for rent to a tenant. The main grievance of the plaintiff appears to be that his tenant was not permitted to park his car in the apartment complex. On the other hand, there are some owners who are permitted to park their car and there are some other owners who park more than one cars belonged to them within the apartment complex. Even though, the plaintiff is also one of the owners of flats, out of 112 flats, the defendant Association, without any reason, did not permit his tenant to park the car in the apartment complex. The defendant, which is a registered association, is seldom following the bylaws of the association. Few days prior to the institution of the suit, the tenant who was in occupation of the flat owned by the plaintiff, vacated it mainly due to the reason that he was not permitted to park his car in the apartment, with the result, the flat he has purchased is lying vacant. Further, the tenants who approached the plaintiff to let out his flat premises ultimately refused to take it for rent mainly due to the reason that the defendant association did not provide space for parking car for his tenant. It is in those circumstances, the plaintiff has come forward with the present suit.

4. On notice, the defendant association filed a written statement repudiating the plaint averments. It was specifically stated that there was no intention on the part of the defendant association to deny permission to the tenant to provide space for parking of the car. It is stated that due to space crunch, most of the tenants in the flats were not permitted to park their cars and only the owners, who are self-occupants of the flats, are permitted to park the cars. The tenants who are in occupation of various flats were only directed to park their cars outside the flats. In fact, the defendant association convened the General Body Meeting on 05.06.2011 in which the issue as regards the permission to grant parking space came up for consideration. In that meeting, it was unanimously decided to discontinue the system of allowing of parking of cars of guests and visitors during nights. It was also unanimously decided not to permit the tenants to pa