Surabhi Gehlot and Ors. v. Swarn Kanta Punj - (High Court of Delhi) (18 Sep 2015)

Right to park vehicle not reasonably necessary for enjoyment of tenancy

MANU/DE/2713/2015

Tenancy

In a case where the Plaintiff had raised dispute to the Defendants’ installation of a gate that prevented her from parking her car, the Court held it irrelevant how long she had been parking her car. Having failed to satisfy the requirements of a dominant and servient heritage, the Plaintiff did not have an easementary right of way, let alone an easementary right of parking. Further, the right to park was a valuable right that, unless expressly stated in the lease, could not be assumed. The Court determined that though the right to park a car was not reasonably necessary, Plaintiff’s right to walk over the disputed land was a necessity for the enjoyment of her tenancy.

Relevant : Chapsibai Dhanjibai v. Purushottam MANU/SC/0564/1971 Jeenab Ali v. Allabuddin, MANU/WB/0185/1896 Haji Abdulla Harron v. Municipal Corporation, Karachi MANU/SN/0017/1938

Tags : TENANCY EASEMENT PARK VEHICLE NECESSARY