IMPORTANT POINT
Eviction decree u/s 13(1)(c) of Bombay Rent Control Act on a finding that tenant had installed machinery working of which and by putting product on the passage caused nuisance to plaintiff and other user of building was not liable to be interfered with even if eviction order on other ground involving purpose of letting was in controversy.

Headnote:Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947—Section 13(1)(a), (c) and (k)—Eviction petition on ground of change of user, causing nuisance to plaintiff and other occupiers of same building by installing machinery and by dumping products and block the passage and in not using premises for purpose for which it was let for a continuous period of six months—Trial Court passed eviction order allowing all three grounds—Court arrived at a finding that tenant, a school teacher was let out two rooms premises for residence and he started its commercial use later on—Appellate Court upheld the decree—High Court declined to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution—Appeal—Failure on part of appellate Court to discuss all relevant material—First appellate Court being final Court of fact and law, should have made a proper examination of relevant material—Decree on ground of nuisance however found suffering no infirmity—Though Court had kept into consideration the purpose of letting but finding was based on effect of installation and working of machinery by tenant, blocking of passage—Eviction decree on that ground however called for no interference.
       Held : On going through the judgments of the trial court, and the appellate court in the light of the submissions made before us it may be possible to say that there has been a failure on the part of the appellate court to discuss all the relevant materials and to that extent its conclusion is open to challenge. The trial court had considered the relevant aspects and had recorded its conclusions. The appellate court should have made a proper reappraisal of the pleadings and the evidence in the case before coming to an independent conclusion of either affirming the findings of the trial court or of interfering with them. Some items of evidence brought to our notice are not seen discussed by the first appellate court. The first appellate court being the final court of fact and law, should have made a proper examination of the relevant materials. To that extent there may be a point in the submission of learned counsel for the tenant. But then, we may have to reckon with the reasoning of the trial court before we make up our mind on the question of interference with the finding on that aspect.(Para 7)
       But, there is a decree for eviction on the ground of the conduct of the tenant which has resulted in causing nuisance and annoyance to the adjoining or neighbouring occupiers of the main building of which the suit premises is a part, in terms of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act and if that part of the decree does not suffer from any infirmity, there will be no reason to interfere with the decree for eviction as a whole. Counsel for the tenant argued that the relevant finding is based solely on the finding that the premises was originally let out for a residential purpose. We are not in a position to agree. It is true that that aspect was also kept in mind by the court while entering the finding on causing nuisance to neighbours and other occupiers. But, the finding is based on the effect of installation and working of machinery by the tenant, the blocking of an ‘Ota’ (passage) by putting up a tin sheet partition and the dumping of articles in the passage and in the open space in the premises. These aspects are relevant and the effect of these acts are relevant considerations while entering a finding on nuisance under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The argument on whether the photographs relied on by the landlord to prove the dumping, were duly proved does not impress us. Similarly, the attempted explanation of the tenant that the goods did not belong to him but to relatives, has been rightly rejected by the trial court and the appellate court. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the decree for eviction under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act. (Paras 8 and 9)

JUDGMENT

P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.—Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel on both sides.

3. The tenant of a building governed by the Bombay Rent, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”) is the appellant before us. The landlord of the building, the respondent, filed a suit for eviction of the tenant under Section 13(1)(a), (c) and (k) of the Act. The landlord pleaded that he had let out the suit premises to the tenant for the purpose of residence and the tenant has used the premises for a purpose different from the one for which it was let by establishing a manufacturing unit therein and has thus contravened Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act and thereby rendered himself liable to be evicted under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act. By installing the machinery and by dumping of the products and the blocking of an ‘Ota’, the tenant had caused nuisance to the plaintiff and the other occupiers of the same building belonging to the plaintiff and had rendered himself liable to be evicted under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act. He had also failed to use the premises for the purpose for which it was let and since he is not using the premises for the purpose for which it was let, for a continuous period of more than six months immediately before the filing of the suit, he was liable to be evicted under Section 13(1)(k) of the Act. The tenant denied the plea that the building was let out to him solely for a residential purpose. He pleaded that it was let out to him for residential and commercial purposes. He denied the committing of nuisance and also the claim that he had ceased to occupy the premises for a period exceeding six months as contended by the landlord.

4. Evidence was let in by the parties. The tenant got marked the registers of the local authority claiming that the building was shown in the books of the authority as having been let out for residential and commercial purposes. He also examined a clerk in the Pune Municipal Corporation and a Tax Inspector of the Corporation. The landlord in his evidence also stated that taxes were levied on the suit premises by the Pune Municipal Corporation on the basis of it being residential as well as commercial. The tenant when examined attempted to deny his signature on the reverse of the counterfoil of a rent receipt produced by the landlord and contended that it was not admissible to prove that the premises was let out to him solely for a residential purpose. On the question of nuisance, the landlord let in evidence to show that the tenant had blocked a passage (Ota) used by all the tenants and by dumping his products, was preventing user of the common area by the others. He also deposed that by installing machinery and operating it, nuisance was being caused to the other tenants and neighbours. The trial court, on a consideration of the pleadings and the evidence in the case came to the conclusion that the premises in question consisting of two rooms was let out to the tenant in the year 1977 and there was nothing to show that until 1980-81 any business was carried on by the tenant in the premises. That Court also took note of the fact that the tenant was a school teacher and the rules of conduct disabled him from carrying on any business when he continued to be a teacher. The counter foil of the rent receipt was also relied on. Taking the view that the commercial use of the building was started only from the year 1980-81 and accepting the evidence on the side of the landlord that the original letting was only for the purpose of residence, it came to the conclusion that there was a change of user and the landlord was entitled to an order of eviction in terms of Section 13(1)(a) of the Act read with Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act. Proceeding further, the trial court also held that the tenant had, by using the machinery, by blocking the ‘Ota’ and by dumping his manufactured products in the common open space, had

Click Here to Read the rest of this document