1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 75 of 2005 Satyanarayan J Gandi & Ano. Vs. Shri Bada Balaji Mandir Trust Shegaon Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri N. R. Saboo Adv. for appellant. Shri B. N. Mohta Adv. for respondents. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 12 th February, 2008. This is an appeal by the tenant-respondent. Plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises which is a godown. The godown has been let out to the appellants-defendants. In front of the said godown there is a Varandah known 2 as Osari and which is described as Osari in the plaint. It appears that there are two portions of the said Osari and the defendant-tenant had tried to enclose that portion of the Osari. Hence the plaintiffs insituted a suit for possession of that portion which is known as Osari. The learned Judge of the trial Court dismissed the suit while the learned Judge of the First Appellate Court decreed the suit holding that Osari is not part of the tenanted premises. He, therefore, directed the possession of the said Osari to be delivered. After having gone through the judgment of the First Appellate Court as well as having seen the photograph which is available, it appears to me that there are two separate portions of Osari, 3 one portion is just infront of the window and the other portion is infront of the door of the godown. Shri Saboo learned counsel for the appellants submits that after the decree for possession is passed he will not be able to enter into the premises at all. The apprehension of Shri Saboo is not correct. Shri Mohta learned counsel for the respondent submits that it is not disputed that the appellant is the tenant and he has therefore every right to approach the godown through one portion of the Osari which is infront of the door of the godowsn. Since such a statement is made by Shri Mohta that the defendant- tenant has a right to approach the godown through the Osari which is infront of the door of the godown there 4 is no question of any obstruction being caused to the defendant while making use of the godown. Shri Mohta submits that in any case suit is only related to portion which lies infront of the window of the godown. He submits that this fact has been made clear in the plaint itself. There is, therefore, no question of causing any obstruction to the defendant for approaching the godown through the portion in front of the door. Shri Saboo learned counsel for the appellants-defendants submits that as far as the construction is concerned, he fairly admits that tenant has no right to make any construction. The decree as passed by the First Appellate Court therefore calls for no interference. There is, therefore, in any case no 5 obstruction to the right of way to the defendant-tenant to approach the godown through one portion which is infront of the door. No substantial questions of law are involved in the appeal. Appeal stands dismissed in limine. JUDGE svk