Tenant will not get right of parking his vehicle in drive way as easementary right
The analysis of the aforesaid legal position would show that the tenant would be entitled only to such rights that would be reasonable necessary for enjoyment of the tenancy. The question is -- Can the requirement of parking a car in the drive-way be considered as an implied term or a right necessary for enjoyment of the tenancy? In our view the answer to the same is in the negative.
24. The right of parking a vehicle is a valuable right and even if the original date of execution of the lease agreement is taken into consideration, it would not be possible to conclude that such a right forms an integral part of the right of enjoyment of the tenanted premesis. If it was so then the same would have beenspecifically provided in the lease agreement.
25. It is also relevant to state that the case set up by the appellants in para 23 of the plaint is that the landlord "allowed and consented" to the parking of vehicles by t he appellants in the drive-way. In view of this averment the appellants cannot contend that it is their easementary right since they themselves have stated that it was only a permission granted by the landlords. It may be added that in the written statement the factum of such permission is specifically disputed and this disputed question of fact will have to be finally settled after trial in the suit since admittedly their is neither any written document or other circumstances evidencing such permission.
26. If the allegation of the appellants of the permission by the landlord to park cars is even taken into consideration at its face value the same cannot be characterised as one which can be said to have matured into any right in favor of the appellants.
Delhi High Court
Shri Akesh Kumar Jain & Anr. vs Shri Harmeet Singh Bakshi & Anr. on 25 May, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001 (59) DRJ 734
