VALIMOHMAD HAJI SAMSUDDIN Vs. SAMSHERKHAN DILAWARKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave involves a question as to whether on the facts, the terrace of a building is covered by a lease of the portion built upon on that floor or is only a licence for user by the tenant. The trial court negatives the case of lease but the appellate court upheld it and the High Court dismissed the revision in limine. The appellant has come up in appeal against that order of the High Court.

(2.) It is obvious that the jurisdiction of the court is not available under these circumstances and although we have granted leave to appeal, it must have been largely to see if some workable arrangements could be quickly made between the parties. That prospect has proved baffling and has had to be abandoned. The necessary consequence is that the appeal fails because we decline to interfere.

(3.) The substantial purpose of the landlord appellant seems to be to construct additional rooms on the vacant terrace which, he says, he is willing to share in compact blocks with the tenant-respondent. He further offers to have on open terrace available on top for the tenant to occupy with a separate staircase. To confirm his bona fides he states that he will leave the tenant intact in regard to the built-up portion except that he may request for an exchange of one room downstairs for one room in the newly built-up area if built upon at all. All these are future plans and cannot be taken as an accomplished fact in this suit for injunction by the tenant-respondent. Here, we cannot grant any reliefs on the lines pleaded for by the landlord.