The purpose of a lease is determined by the dominant intention of the parties at the time of execution, and a lease for a composite purpose of residence and business cannot be terminated on the ground that the tenant has acquired alternate residential accommodation.

Headnote:
BOMBAY RENT ACT - LEASE - PURPOSE - NUISANCE - EVICTION - [SECTION 13(1)(C), 13(1)(I)] - Whether the lease was for residential purpose or for a composite purpose of residence and business - Whether the petitioner is guilty of acts of nuisance by tethering cattle in the open space surrounding the rooms occupied by him as a tenant.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a tenant of four rooms on the ground floor of a building, filed a petition challenging the decree of the District Judge allowing the respondent's suit for eviction. The respondent, a trade union, had purchased the building in 1960 and had a strained relationship with the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the lease was for a composite purpose of residence and business, that he was not guilty of arrears of rent, that the respondent did not require the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for its own use and occupation, and that if a decree for possession were passed it would cause greater hardship to the petitioner. The respondent claimed that the petitioner was causing nuisance by tethering buffaloes and storing articles in the open space, and that the petitioner was guilty of arrears of rent.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the lease was for a composite purpose of residence and business, that the petitioner was not guilty of arrears of rent, that the respondent did not require the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for its own use and occupation, and that if a decree for possession were passed it would cause greater hardship to the petitioner. The court also found that the petitioner was not guilty of acts of nuisance by tethering cattle in the open space surrounding the rooms occupied by him as a tenant.
Issues: 1. Whether the lease was for residential purpose or for a composite purpose of residence and business. 2. Whether the petitioner is guilty of acts of nuisance by tethering cattle in the open space surrounding the rooms occupied by him as a tenant.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the lease was for a composite purpose of residence and business based on the evidence of the petitioner, the evidence of a witness who was looking after the property on behalf of the owners when the lease was granted, and a document in which the then Secretary of the respondent undertook not to disturb the petitioner from taking and bringing bicycles and their parts from and to the suit premises. 2. The court held that the petitioner was not guilty of acts of nuisance by tethering cattle in the open space surrounding the rooms occupied by him as a tenant, as the respondent did not examine any neighbouring occupier to show that the tethering of the cattle and the storing of articles in the open space caused nuisance or annoyance, and the respondent's grievance was on the ground that it would cause damage to the property rather than nuisance to the respondents or the adjoining occupiers.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, the decree of the District Judge was set aside, and the decree of the trial court dismissing the respondent's suit for eviction was restored. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the petitioner in all the courts.

JUDGMENT - R.A. JAHAGIRDAR, J.:---The petitioner is a tenant of four rooms on the ground floor of a building bearing House No. 302 in Baliram Peth in Jalgaon City. These four rooms along with two other rooms had taken by the petitioner as a tenant sometime in the year 1957 and the agreed rent of the premises at that time was Rs. 67 per month. The petitioner has contended, and not without justification, that apart from these six rooms the open space surrounding the building was also a part of the demised premises. Detailed reference will be made to that contention later in this judgement. On 15th December, 1960, under a sale deed at Exhibit 80 respondent No. 1 in this petition, hereinafter referred to as "the respondent" purchased the said building. For sometime thereafter the relations between the respondent and the petitioner seem to have been sufficiently cordial so much so that the petitioner was persuaded to surrender possession of two rooms to the respondent. After such surrender the rent of the remaining four rooms was fixed at Rs. 45 per month.

2. In the year 1962, however, there was a suit filed by the petitioner against the respondent restraining the respondent from interfering with the petitioner's right to go the suit premises through the main gate of the compound in which the building is situated. The fact that the petitioner was compelled to file a suit against the respondent for a relief of the type mentioned above itself indicates that there was obstruction caused by the respondent to the petitioner in the lawful enjoyment of the premises leased to the petitioner. In fact by the compromise, which is at Exhibit 75, the rights of the petitioner existing prior to the suit were restored. This however, did not deter the respondent which is a registered Trade Union, from indulging, with the assistance of its members, in several illegal acts such as wrongfully confining the petitioner to his house. This wrongful confinement has been referred to in the trade union languages as "Gherao". Subsequently under the threat of criminal prosecution or otherwise the then Secretary of the respondent Sangh executed a document at Exhibit 112 wherein he in unqualified terms owned his mistake and gave an assurance of good conduct in future. In this document at Exhibit 112 it has been further mentioned by the then Secretary of the respondent Sangh that he will allow the petitioner all access for the purpose of carrying bicycles and parts of the same to and from the building. This is also a tell-tale circumstances of a fact which was asserted by the petitioner and denied by the respondent in the courts below. The respondent thereafter filed a suit being Civil Suit No. 337 of 1964, for possession of the premises tenanted by the petitioner on the ground that the same were required by the respondent reasonably and bona fide for their own use and occupation. That suit has been admittedly dismissed and the respondent was unable to obtain possession of the suit premises.

3. By notice at Exhibit 61 dated 12th of August, 1968, the respondent again terminated the tenancy of the petitioner and called upon him to vacate the suit premises. In this notice several acts allegedly committed by the petitioner and allegedly causing damage to the suit property were mentioned. Since the petitioner did not comply with the requisition for vacating the suit premises, the respondent filed the present suit, being Regular Civil Suit No. 141 of 1969 on 21st of March, 1969 in the Court of the Civil Judge, (Junior Division) at Jalgaon. In this suit almost all the founds that are normally available to a landlord to evict his tenant under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay Rent Act", were urged in support of the prayer for eviction. On the pleading of the parties the learned trial Judge raised as many as twelve issues and answered every one of them against the respondent. It was held,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document