/ 1 / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7996 OF 2007 Wallace Flour Mills Co. Ltd. ...Petitioner V/s. Mr.Kumar Lulla & Ors. ...Respondents Shri.Sandeep Padwal i/b. Prakash Mahadik for Petitioner. Shri.A.R.Mishra for Respondents. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : 6th FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the lower Appellate Court in Appeal No.19/2003 whereby the Petitioner herein has been restrained by order of injunction from obstructing the Respondents/tenants' access to the terrace water tank. 3. Brief facts, in nutshell, are as under:- Petitioner is the landlord of the premises known as Laxmi Estate. Respondents/tenants are the tenants of the premises. The Petitioner filed a / 2 / suit for injunction against the Respondents/tenants on various grounds. During the pendency of the suit, an application was filed by the Respondents for injunction restraining the Plaintiff/Petitioner herein from obstructing the Respondents from having access to the water tank which was situated on the terrace of the building. The Trial Court dismissed that application. Against said order, Respondents preferred an appeal in the Small Causes Court and said appeal was allowed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 4. It is submitted that in the application for injunction, no averments were made that landlord had stopped water supply of the tenants. He further submitted that in the entire body of the application, it was claimed that the Respondents were using the terrace from inception. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that U/s.29 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, tenant cannot claim use of terrace as essential service or supply. He submitted that the Trial Court rejected the application. He submitted that the lower Appellate Court erred, however, in granting permission to the Respondents/tenants. It was submitted that nature of the / 3 / access was not specified in the application filed by the Respondents. It was further submitted that the Respondents had installed water tank and thereafter, applied for access and under these circumstances, the lower Appellate Court was not justified in granting access to the Respondents. 5. Said submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner cannot be accepted. The Petitioner in Contempt Petition which was taken out by the Respondents, had made a statement before this Court that they would ensure tenants' access to the water tank on the terrace in the suit premises by handing over one spare set of keys to the Respondents within a period of three days. Accordingly, compliance of the said undertaking which was given to the Court, was made by the Petitioner herein. Thereafter, present petition has been filed. 6. Perusal of the application filed by the Respondents/Defendants in the Trial Court discloses that a specific prayer was made in respect of having access to the terrace water tank and the lower Appellate Court has also granted injunction in respect of access to the terrace water tank. It is obvious that said injunction is granted during the pendency of the suit and it is a temporary injunction and not a permanent injunction as submitted by / 4 / the learned counsel for the Petitioner. It is no doubt true that the Respondents/Tenants cannot claim access to the terrace as essential service or supply within the meaning of Section 29 of the said Act. However, injunction is restricted only to giving access to the water tank on the terrace. Submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner cannot be accepted. No case is made out for interfering with the order passed by the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, writ petition is rejected. 7. It is clarified that all contentions which are raised by the Petitioner and Respondents in respect of legality of the water tank are kept open. . Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. . V.M. KANADE, J.