The burden of proving nuisance or annoyance is on the landlord, and the court must consider the evidence and circumstances of the alleged nuisance or annoyance.

( 1 ) THIS is a tenant's revision petition and directed against the order of eviction dated 5-4-1975 passed by the Additional District Judge, Belgaum, in H. R. C. A. NO. 23 [74 reversing the order dated 6-3-1974 passed by the I additional Munsiff, Belgaum, in H. R. C. No. 65/72 on the file of his Court c. T. S. No. 1792 1 consisting of three rooms with a bath room situate in Kelkarbag of which the petitioner is a monthly tenant in occupation, is the subject-matter of dispute.

( 2 ) WHILE the respondent, who is admittedly a landlord of the premises in question, resides in a neighbouring house bearing C. T. S. No. 1791, two of his ther tenants namely ) Laxman (P. W. 2) and ii) Dattatreya (P. W. 3) reside in c. T. S. Nos. 1792/3 and 1792/2 respectively. There is no dispute that C. T. S. No. l792|1 in occupation of the tenant-revision petitioner and C. T. S. Nos. 1792|2 and 1792/3 are situated adjacent to one another. While the latter two face towards north, the former faces to east. There is a well and a privy common to all the three tenaments situated towards the west of C. T. S. No. l792|3, i. e. , between CTSNo. 1791 in occupation of the landlord and C. T. S. No. 1792/3 in occupation of Laxman (P. W. 2 ).

( 3 ) ON 18-12-1973 the land-lord made an application in the court of the munsiff for eviction of the tenant on the ground of nuisance and annoyance metipned in Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Karnataka rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), alleging, inter alia, the tenant and the members of his family were preventing the neighbouring tenants from going to well and latrine and constantly picking up quarrels and abusing them and thus disturbing their peaceful life; and the inspite of being repeatedly requested to live peacefully they were not heeding to his advice and that therefore, he issued a notice dated 11-10-197 terminating the tenancy But the tenant had adamantly continued to occupy the premises and he had therefore to make the application for his eviction.

( 4 ) THE tenant resisted the claim. He filed his objection on 29-10-1971. He denied all these allegations. He also contended fmther that he was in occupation of the premises since last more than 15 years paying monthly rent of Rs. 20 -, but the landlord was pressing to pay Rs. 301- as rent per month, though he offered to pay Rs. 25|- per month, he refused to accept the same and as such when sent the rent by money order, he refused to receive the came, and had come to Court with a false case, in collusion with the^ other tenants with a view to extract higher rent. He also contended that" the notice terminating the tenancy was invalid.

( 5 ) AT the hearing of the petition, the landlord examined himself as witness as P. W. 1 in support of the allegations made in the application. He also examined the neighbouring two tenants, Laxman (P. W. 2) and dattatraya (P. W. 3) and got marked several documents, including the notices Exts. P. 14, P. 13 and P. 7 and Exts. P. 11, 12 and P. 9 allegedly issued by the two tenants (P. Ws. 2 and 3) complaining of the nuisance and annoyance. The tenant also examined himself as D. W. 1 in proof of the contentions raised by him and got marked two receipts as Exts. D1 and d. 2. After hearing arguments, during the course of the judgment, the learned munsiff raised two points for consideration, namely, (i) whether the notice terminating the tenancy was vaild and (ii) whether the tenant and the members of his family had become a continuous source of nuisance and annoyance to the other tenants.

( 6 ) ON the basis of the oral and documentary evidence before him the learned Munsiff, though found the notice terminating the tenancy was valid but the landlord had failed to establish the annoyance and nuisance to the neighbouring tenants, as alleged in the petition and in that view he dismisssed the petition with costs. Being aggrieved by the said order, when the landlord approached the District Judge in appe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document