1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 552 OF 2007 Gajanan Trimbak Tembe .....Applicant Versus Babulal Chandulal Shah .....Respondent Mr. A. S. Khandeparkar i/b. M/s.Warerkar & Warerkar for the Applicant. Mr. R. D. Soni i/b. Ram & Co. for the Respondent. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 9th JULY, 2009. P.C.: Heard, Mr. Khandeparkar and Mr.Soni, learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. The Applicant is the original defendant. The Respondent who is the original plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the Applicant from obstructing him from starting or carrying on the construction work in the Respondent’s property i.e. Plot no.12 in Sumati Co-operative Housing Society, Nashik for the purpose of consuming the balance F.S.I.. The said suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. However, the Lower Appellate Court reversed the decree and permanent injunction was granted in favour of the Respondent. There is no dispute that the plot no.12 in Sumati Co-operative Housing Society, was allotted to the Respondent. The area of the said plot is approximately 3500 sq. ft.. The Bungalow admeasuring about 930 sq. ft. was constructed by the society and possession of the same was handed over to the Respondent. This Bungalow was leased by the Respondent to the Applicant/tenant in the year 1971. There is no dispute that the Respondent filed proceedings under the Rent Act for the eviction of the present occupant. The proceedings went up to the Apex Court. However, the Respondent could not succeed. 2 3. Since the total area of the Plot No.12 is 3500 sq.ft. and the construction in the said plot is only in respect of 930 sq.ft, it is the case of the Respondent that there is unconsumed FSI of 2070 sq.ft and he wants to utilise the same. For that purpose, he submitted plans to the Nashik Corporation and the said plans are sanctioned. It is clear from the plans that the Respondent is not obstructing or interfering with Applicant’s possession in the demised premises viz.Bungalow and under the sanctioned plans, the Respondent wants to carry construction to consume balance F.S.I. and since it was obstructed by the Applicant, the present suit came to be filed. It is the case of the Applicant that the Respondent leased to him the Bungalow, surrounding premises and also the terrace of the Bungalow. On the contrary, the Respondent submits that only Bungalow consisting of 930 sq. ft. was leased out to the Respondent. Thus, the issue which requires consideration is whether the Respondent leased to the Applicant mere Bungalow or the surrounding premises of the Bungalow including the terrace. The learned Counsel for the Applicant has filed compilation of documents. Page 8 of the compilation is the lease deed and Page 12 is a copy of the rent receipt. Perusal of these documents show that only Bungalow admeasuring about 930 sq.ft. was leased and therefore, in my view, the Applicant cannot claim any interest in the premises, except the Bungalow. 4. Mr. Khandeparkar, learned Counsel, also submitted that before claiming any injunction, the Respondent ought to show his possession of premises surrounding the Bungalow and since same was not proved, the injunction order could not have been issued against the Applicant. This submission is without any merit. Admittedly, the place surrounding the Bungalow is an open place. The Applicant failed to prove any rights in respect of the said premises. There is no dispute that the Respondent is the owner of the suit premises. Therefore, the principal that possession follows title is applicable to this case. 4. The Lower Appellate Court recorded finding of the facts to the effect that the Applicant could not prove his rights to the place surrounding the 3 Bungalow and his tenancy rights are restricted only to the Bungalow. This finding of facts cannot be interfered in exercise of my powers under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. I do not find any merit in the Civil Revision Application and therefore, the same is accordingly, dismissed. 5. At this stage, Mr. Khandeparkar, learned Counsel, requests that the interim order may be continued for a period of twelve weeks, in order to enable him to approach the Apex Court. Mr. Soni, learned Counsel for the Respondent, submits that reasonable time may be granted. In the above facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, interim order granted earlier is continued for the period of six weeks from today. Sd/- (R. V. MORE, J.)