( 1 ) THIS revision petition at the instance of the landlord arises out of a petition filed under Rent Control Act for eviction on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent, personal requirement and acis of nuisance committed by the tenant the Rent Controller found that the tenant committed acts of nuisance and on this ground ordered eviction. The appellate court found that the lease comprises the building and site as well and in view of the construction of building subsequent to 26--8-1957 Rent Control Act is not applicable and it is further held that bone fide requiredment is not prove , On the ground of nuisance, it is found that the tenant committed nuisance by starting rope making iudustry in the premises and suit for restrainaing the tenant form making use of the premises for the said industry causing nuisance ultimately ended in a compromise and pursuant to compromise the tenent refrained from rope- making and the machinery installed by the tenant was dismantledas per the compromise decree The appellate court found that nuisance abated and on onsideration of the subseduent event it is held that the landlord is not entitled for eviction.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the question of taking into consideration the subsequent events with regard to the commission of nuisance does not arise as the eviction comes into effect on the day when the nuisance is committed. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that in view of the subsequent event of abatement of nuisance in accordance with compromise arrived at between the parties in the suit, the nuisance does not subsist and as such the petition for eviction on this ground does not survive.

( 3 ) IT may be mentioned that the rent Control Act is applicable in view of striking down of Sec. 32 (b) of the Rent control Act.

( 4 ) SEC. 10 (2) of the Rent Control act pertaining to eviction to the extent relevant on the ground of nuisance is as fol owing:-"10 (2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the controller after giving tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satisfied- iv) that the tenant has been guilty of such acts and conduct which are a nuisance to the occupiers of other portion in the same building or of buildings in the neighbourhood or provided that in any case falling under clause (i) if the Controller is satisfied that the tenants default to pay or tender rent was not wilful, he may notwithstanding anything in Sec 11, give the tenant a reasonable time not exceeding fifteen days, to pay or tender the rent due by him to the landlord upto the date of such payment or tender and on such payment or tender, the application shall be rejected. "the learned counsel for the petitioner focussed upon the expression "has been guilty" and stressed the expression denotes past action and must be considered contemporaneous with the action initiated for eviction and the subsequent conduct of alieration or abatement does not have the effect of nullifying the cause of action for eviction. This contention is sought to be fortified by proviso to Sec 10 (2) of the Act which is confined to consiceration of subsequent event or condonation in the event of default in payment of rent only. Tne reliance is placed upon the decision of this court in Pushpa Bai Vs. Sulochana menon (1) 1989 (2) An. W. R. 363 in this case the landlord filed an eviction petition on the ground that the nuisance has been committed by the tenant who isresiding in the first floor. The nuisance alleged is that the buffaloes are tied by the tenant in the outside near the bed room causing bad smell and thus contributed to the enormous growth of tlies and musquitoes and the damage is also done to the flooring. At the time when the revision petition came up for hearing before the High Court it is contended by the tenant that since the buffaloes have been sold away afte