* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1971 OF 2008 Shri.Janardhan Vaman Kamath ......Appellant/ (Orig.Defd) V/s. 1. Shri.Abdul Jabbar Badgujar & Ors. .....Respondents/ (Orig.Plffs.) ======== Mr.J.G.Reddy, advocate for appellant. Ms.Sunita Poddar i/by.M.Y.Sayani, advocate for respondents. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 17TH JULY, 2009. P.C. : 1. Considering the nature of the dispute, the records and proceedings are dispensed with. Heard the advocates for final hearing. 2. This First Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 8th July, 2008 passed by the Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court in S.C.Suit No.3825 of 1997. The appellant is the original defendant. 3. The respondents who are the owners of the property known as `Badgujar House’ standing on CTS No.206 and CTS No.205 filed the suit herein for permanent injunction to restrain the appellant from obstructing their access through the common stair-case to the terrace of the property. The appellant is the * 2 * tenant of the respondents, in respect of the premises on the first floor of the building standing on CTS No.206. It has been the defence of the appellant that he is in exclusive occupation of the entire terrace as part of the demised premises. The appellant claims his tenancy since the year 1959, when only the building on CTS No.206 was standing. The building on CTS No.205 came to be constructed in the year 1979. It is so constructed that the buildings on CTS No.205 and 206 have a common terrace. It is not the case of the appellant that after construction of the building on CTS No.205 any fresh tenancy was entered into in respect of the terrace portion in his favour. In that circumstance, there cannot be any claim for exclusive right to the terrace by the appellant. The further admitted facts are that the access to the premises of the appellant and the terrace is same. Therefore, the appellant cannot put any obstruction in the access preventing use thereof by the respondents. The respondents being owners of the property are entitled to the enjoyment of the terrace. Therefore, the suit has been rightly decreed. 4. The impugned decree is passed on the admitted set of facts, there is no question either of fact or law arising for consideration of the court in this appeal. Hence, the First Appeal is dismissed in limine. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J]