Usage of common areas essential for tenancy enjoyment is incidental and cannot be restrained.

The Plaintiff, owner of "Karnani Mansion" in Kolkata, filed a suit for permanent injunction and damages against the Defendants

Defendant No. 1 was a monthly tenant of a ground-floor showroom at 25B Park Street since 1956, and Defendant No. 2 operated a Hyundai dealership therein

The Plaintiff terminated the tenancy in March 2006, alleging that the Defendants were unauthorizedly using the rear compound/courtyard of the mansion for parking, fitting, and delivering cars

The Plaintiff contended that the showroom's only authorized access was from Mirza Ghalib Street and that it had installed iron pillars to block the rear entrance, which the Defendants allegedly removed on September 2, 2009

The Defendants argued that the compound had been used uninterruptedly since 1956 for vehicle movement, as the front entrance was physically unsuitable for car delivery due to a high footpath and heavy traffic

1. Whether the suit is maintainable and within the laws of limitation?

2. Whether the Defendants have any legal right or easement of necessity over the compound adjacent to the showroom?

3. Whether the use of the courtyard by the Defendants is incidental to their tenancy?

4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction and damages for the alleged removal of iron pillars?

The court examined the definition of "premises" under Section 2(f) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (and the 1997 Act), which includes grounds and appurtenances appertaining to the building

It considered the doctrine of "easement of necessity" and the principle of "lost grant," where long, uninterrupted user (over 20 years) creates a presumption of a legal origin for a right

The court also applied the rule of "implied grant," suggesting a landlord cannot derogate from a grant necessary for the enjoyment of the demised premises

The court found that the 1956 tenancy agreement described the premises as a "showroom having 4 ways," with no negative covenant restricting courtyard use

Documentary evidence, including a 1960 letter from the Plaintiff, showed that while the Plaintiff objected to car washing/repairing in the courtyard, it did not prohibit its use for transit, acknowledging the area was used for its "intended purpose"

Testimony from customers and police reports from 2007 contradicted the Plaintiff’s claim that rear access only began after the alleged 2009 removal of pillars; the court noted that car deliveries were practically impossible through the front entrance due to the 9.5-inch high footpath

The court concluded that the iron pillars were likely a recent obstruction placed by the Plaintiff to interfere with a long-standing practice

Consequently, the court held that the use of the courtyard was "incidental to the tenancy" and essential for the business for which the premises were let

It held that the Defendants had established a right to use the courtyard since the inception of the tenancy in 1956 and that such user is incidental to the tenancy and necessary for the functional enjoyment of the car showroom

The Plaintiff was denied the decree for permanent injunction and damages, as the Defendants, being statutory tenants, could not be restrained from using the compound in a manner consistent with their long-standing occupancy