Supreme Court affirms denial of disputed passage claim, citing lack of tenancy rights.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to deny the appellants' claim to a disputed passage in a building, ruling that it was not part of their tenancy or an easement of necessity. The Court found that alternative access was available and dismissed the argument that the passage was granted as an easement to all tenants due to lack of evidence. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay costs.

---

---

Issues involved:
The appeal involves a question regarding the entitlement of the appellants to use a disputed passage in a building as part of their lease for the first floor portion.

Summary:
The dispute arose when the first respondent decided to demolish a portion of the building, including the main entrance from Errabalu Chetty Street, which provided access to the appellants' tenement on the first floor. The appellants objected and filed a suit seeking injunction, claiming that the disputed passage was essential to their tenancy and also an amenity under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the disputed passage was not part of the demise or an essential element of the contract of tenancy. The lower Appellate Court, however, decreed the suit, but the High Court in a second appeal reversed this decision and dismissed the suit.

The appellants contended that the High Court should not have interfered with the lower Appellate Court's finding that the disputed passage was part of their tenancy. They argued that the use of the passage was either part of the demise or an easement enforceable against successors. However, the Supreme Court held that the High Court was correct in its decision. The High Court found that the disputed passage was not part of the tenancy but merely provided access to the tenement, based on the address used by the appellants and the common use of the passage by multiple tenants.

The Supreme Court further considered whether the appellants could claim the disputed passage as an easement of necessity. It was noted that the sale deed did not reserve the passage in favor of the lessor, and alternative access through Vanniar Street had been provided to all tenants. Therefore, the Court concluded that the appellants were not entitled to the use of the disputed passage as an easement of necessity. Additionally, the argument that the passage was granted as an easement to all tenants was dismissed due to lack of evidence supporting such a claim.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to deny the appellants' claim to the disputed passage, and ordered the appellants to pay costs.

---