Under Section 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, a landlord is entitled to a decree for eviction if the tenant has committed an act which is destructive or injurious to the suit premises.

JUDGMENT - M.P. KANADE, J.:---Both these petitions are under Article 227 of the Constitution and concurrent findings of facts have been challenged, viz. as to whether the defendants are using the suit premises for the purpose other than that for which they had been leased in breach of the terms and conditions of the lease and whether the defendants had committed an act which was destructive or permanently injurious to the suit premises as a whole.

2. Few facts leading to this litigation are as under :

The respondent Bhavaribai Raghunath Sikachi, the landlady filed a suit for ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent and contravening the terms of lease, and thirdly the change of user or for committing differents acts of destruction to the suit premises. She also prayed for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,063/00 as arrears of rent. The monthly rent payable to the respondent was Rs. 34/-. The premises were leased out for business and also for residential purpose under the rent note at Exhibit 74. It appears that the petitioners stored some inflamable articles, like crackers or oil grass, empty wooden boxes without taking proper care. Those goods caught fir on or about November 23, 1964 as a result whereof part of the suit premises and also adjoining premises in possession of tenant of opponent No. 1 were gutted in fire, thereby causing destruction of the suit property except in room in the rear portion of the house being House No. 20, situated in Ward No. 5 of Baramati town. Respondent therefore issued a notice on May 19, 1967 terminating the tenancy of the petitioners with effect from June 7, 1967. The petitioners failed to comply with the said notice and did not deliver possession of the suit premises. Hence, a civil suit was filed for eviction against the petitioners. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are the brothers of petitioner No. 1, and therefore, they were made defendants in the suit. The said suit was resisted by the petitioners by filing their written statement. They denied the contentions and the averments made in the plaint against them. It was also contended in the written statement that the suit premises were not used for the purpose other than the one for which the same were leased and that there is no change of user and there was no negligence on the part of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, they stored crackers after obtaining a licence in that behalf. However, there was short circuit in the electric connection as a result thereof part of the suit premises caught fire and were destroyed. It is further contended by the petitioner that the respondent plaintiff had a filed a suit for damages against them in respect of the destruction to the suit premises. Although the said suit was dismissed in the trial Court, it was allowed in the Appeal Court, and the petitioners second appeal in this Court was dismissed. The petitioners have paid the damages as decreed against them. The petitioners also filed a Miscellaneous Application No. 22 of 1967 within the one month from the date of the suit notice for fixation of the standard rent. The petitioners had paid the interim standard rent in the miscellaneous proceedings.

3. The learned trial Judge framed the necessary issued at Exhibit 22, recorded the evidence of the parties and having heard them, came to the conclusion that the suit premises were used contrary to the terms of the lease. It also held that the explosives were stored in the suit premises unlawfully by the petitioners and the suit premises were damaged on account of the negligence of petitioner No. 1. It is also further held that there was a change of user. Consistent with these findings, the learned trial Judge held that the plaintiff Bhavaribai Sikachi proved her case and decreed the suit by judgment and order dated February 17, 1971.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment the petitioners preferred an appeal to the learned District Judge bearing Civil Appeal No. 331 of 1971. There was also a Rev

Click Here to Read the rest of this document