1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.461 OF 2009 Smt. Urmila Wd/o Padmakar Wavikar & Ors. .... Applicants Vs. Smt. Sarlaben Kevalchand Rathod .... Respondent Shri Lexim i/b Lexim Associates for the Applicants. Shri S.K. Jain for the Respondent. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: JUNE 23, 2010 P.C: 1. This revision is directed against the concurrent judgments of the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai, maintained upon appeal by an Appellate Bench of the said Court, whereby the Courts have held that the applicant shall not obstruct the respondent/plaintiff/tenant's usage of passage through door No.3 to have access to the common bathroom and toilet. 2. The learned counsel for the applicants first submitted that since the dispute was not 2 one which could be called a dispute between the landlords and the tenant, the Court of Small Causes did not have jurisdiction to decide such a dispute. This contention has to be rejected. The dispute was a landlord tenant dispute pertaining to use of a passage leading to toilet. 3. According to the learned counsel for the applicants, the passage was a part of the landlord's tenement. It is not a part of tenement leased and therefore the tenant has no rights in respect of these so called passage, which was in fact a living room. He submitted that it would be clear from a sale deed which is executed on 5-9-1991, that is soon before the suit was filed by the tenant, that the passage had been described as the living room and not as a passage. It is not the tenant's case that the passage has been let out to her. Question is only of her right to access toilet block through the passage. By a mere look at the map of the premises, it would be clear that what the applicants brand as a living room is a passage. Sale deed dated 5-9-1991 is unhelpful for two reasons: first, it was between landlord's own family members and secondly, it was executed too soon before the suit was filed 3 to create a doubt if its object was only to mis-describe the passage. Hence there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below on the question of nature of the passage and tenant's right to use the same. The revision is therefore rejected. Status quo to continue for a period of eight weeks at the request of the learned counsel for the applicants. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)