Case laws:
1. Appalasawmy B. V Bassaya R. 2020 SCJ 96
In this case, the applicant is seeking a writ habere facias possessionem compelling the
respondent to vacate the first floor of the premises of a two storeyed building belonging
to the legal community having existed between the applicant and her deceased husband.
She explained that the respondent has been a constant source of nuisance and
harassment and has assaulted her several times.
Given that there was authorization to occupy the first floor of the premises, the ground
floor becomes the ‘logement principal menage’ of the applicant. Hence the right of
usufruct of the applicant under the article 768 of the Code Civil is restricted to the
ground floor of the property only.
However, the applicant and her husband used the whole of the property as their
matrimonial home consisting of two storeys and after the demise of her husband she is
entitled to the usufruct of the property as per the law.
The Court found that the contention of the respondent as to the right of usufruct of the
applicant being limited to the ground floor is serious and bona fide. The application was
set aside.
1. Appalasawmy B. V Bassaya R. 2020 SCJ 96
In this case, the applicant is seeking a writ habere facias possessionem compelling the
respondent to vacate the first floor of the premises of a two storeyed building belonging
to the legal community having existed between the applicant and her deceased husband.
She explained that the respondent has been a constant source of nuisance and
harassment and has assaulted her several times.
Given that there was authorization to occupy the first floor of the premises, the ground
floor becomes the ‘logement principal menage’ of the applicant. Hence the right of
usufruct of the applicant under the article 768 of the Code Civil is restricted to the
ground floor of the property only.
However, the applicant and her husband used the whole of the property as their
matrimonial home consisting of two storeys and after the demise of her husband she is
entitled to the usufruct of the property as per the law.
The Court found that the contention of the respondent as to the right of usufruct of the
applicant being limited to the ground floor is serious and bona fide. The application was
set aside.
