1. The plaintiff, who is respondent here, obtained from the lower appellate Court an injunction directing the appellants to close a certain door, which had been opened by them on the ground that it interfered with the plaintiff's privacy. The defendants come here in second appeal. The only plea urged before me is that the plaintiff could not maintain the suit as it was not shown that he was the owner of the house, the privacy of which was interfered with. In support of this plea reference is made to the case--Gokul Prasad v. Radho (1888) I.L.R., 10 All., 358. It is true that at page 387 of the judgment in that case, it is said that an owner of a house has a good cause of action where there is substantial interference with the right of privacy. But I cannot take this as deciding that the owner only has a good cause of action in such a case. There is no reason why a lessee, or other person who is in lawful possession of premises, may not maintain an action if his right of privacy is interfered with. No plea is set up have to the effect that the door was opened with the consent of the owner of the house occupied by the plaintiff. The learned vakil for the appellants practically admits that the language of Section 4 of the Easements Act, which defines an easement as a right which the owner or occupier of land possesses, is against him. I dismiss the appeal with costs.
2. The objection under Section 561 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not pressed and is likewise dismissed.