In the facts of the case, it is clear that the applicant was not granted any tenancy which would include some part in the building along with the open plot of land. It is only the open plot of land which has been independently let out and thus the contention as urged on behalf of the applicant that the word 'appurtenant' is required to be read as forming part of the building, with which the applicants have no connection whatsoever cannot be accepted. If this contention is accepted it would also amount to accepting something which is completely alien to the facts on record namely that the tenancy which is granted to the applicant is in respect of the open plot and no other premises in the building. The contention of Mr. Jahagirdar that it is a open plot within the compound wall and being an open space compulsory required to be maintained under the municipal laws also cannot be accepted. Such a hypothesis, contrary to the agreement of tenancy which is only in respect of open plot of land, is totally untenable. This submission of Mr. Jahagirdar does not have any foundation on the facts and the evidence on record. Also the contention as urged on behalf of the applicant that the premises in question are commercial premises and therefore, the open ground as let out to the applicant would be required to be treated as 'appurtenant' to the building cannot be accepted, in view of the clear definition of the 'premises' under section 7(9) of the Act. The submission in fact again goes contrary to the agreement of tenancy and the admitted position that what was let out is the open plot of land. The learned counsel for the respondents would be justified in placing the reliance on the Division Bench of this Court in Morarji Goculdas Deoji Trust & Ors. vs. Madhav Vithal Kudwa (supra) where the Court has interpreted the word 'appurtenant' though under the provision of section 5(8)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act, the Court had observed that the word 'appurtenant' has a distinct and definite meaning, it would import nothing more than what is strictly pertaining to the subject matter of the grant.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Civil Revision Application No. 358 of 2015
Decided On: 08.01.2018
Auto Hirers and Ors. Vs. Commerce Centre Cooperative Society Ltd.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
G.S. Kulkarni, J.
Citation: 2018(3) MHLJ 942
