1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Second Appeal No. 441 of 2002 ( Savatram Sons Private Ltd. & others VERSUS Savatram Ramprasad Milla, A Unit of National Textile Corpn. (M.N.) Tilak Road, Akola ) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri C.A.Joshi, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.C.Mehadia, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 3 rd August, 2007. Heard Shri C.A. Joshi, the learned counsel for the appellants and Shri S.C. Mehadia, the learned counsel for the respondent. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing or obstructing the peaceful enjoyment of the tenanted premises inclusive of the facilities like latrine, bathroom, water supply and parking. According to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs were in possession of the premises on the ground floor in the premises of S.R. Mills. The plaintiffs nos.1 to 3 were in possession of the premises which was situated on the first floor of the S.R. Mills compound. The first floor premises were taken on rent in the name of 2 plaintiffs nos.1 to 3. The plaintiffs approached the premises on vehicles which include two wheelers and four wheelers as also the employees of the plaintiffs were approaching the premises either on two wheelers or on bicycles. The open space on the eastern side was being used by the plaintiffs, their employees and visitors as a parking place for their vehicles. It was further pleaded by the plaintiff that since 04.01.2000, the defendant started obstructing the plaintiffs and their employees from bringing their vehicles inside gate no.1 without any authority thereby interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the tenancy rights of the plaintiffs. It was then pleaded that the latrine, bathroom and water connection to the premises were in possession of the plaintiffs and this facility was availed by the plaintiffs since the inception of the tenancy. The plaintiffs, therefore, sought the permanent injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing the plaintiffs from using all these facilities. The defendant filed the written statement and denied the claim of the plaintiff. According to the defendant, it was not agreed between the parties that the plaintiff would use the facilities mentioned in the plaint as an integral part of his tenancy. The defendant denied 3 that the plaintiffs had ever used the facility of parking as alleged by the plaintiffs. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiffs were not paying any rent to the defendant but the defendant was merely receiving compensation for the user fo the property by the plaintiffs. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the issues and after considering the evidence tendered by the parties held that the plaintiffs had proved that the parking facility on the open space was a part and parcel of the plaintiffs' tenancy rights. The Court further held that the facility of latrine, bathroom and water on the suit premises was also a part and parcel of the tenancy rights and all the employees were already using the same. Consequently, the trial Court granted the permanent injunction, as prayed by the plaintiffs. In an appeal filed by the defendant, the first appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and allowed the appeal filed by the defendant. The appellate Court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that they had a right to use the facility of parking, latrine, bathroom and water tap as a part and parcel of the tenancy rights. The appellate Court, after appreciating the material evidence on record, held that 4 the plaintiffs did not produce any cogent evidence to hold that the facility of latrine, bathroom and water tap was essential for the better enjoyment of the tenanted premises so as to secure a perpetual injunction. The reason recorded in the judgment by the first appellate Court, specially in paragraphs nos.28, 29, 30 and 32 thereof, clearly revealed that the plaintiffs had not produced any evidence worth the name to point out that the aforesaid facilities were an integral part of the tenancy. The findings of the trial Court were reversed by the first appellate Court on a reappreciation of the evidence on record. I was also taken to the evidence of the witness examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. There is nothing in the evidence of the plaintiffs' witness to show that the aforesaid facilities were a part and parcel of the plaintiffs' tenancy rights. The witness examined on behalf of the plaintiffs did not state that the facility of parking, latrine, bathroom and water tap were used by the plaintiffs as a part and parcel of the tenancy. Since the findings recorded by the first appellate Court are based on a proper appreciation of facts, they cannot be lightly interfered with in this second appeal. Since no substantial question of law arises for 5 consideration in this second appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE