The conduct of a tenant that causes material interference with the ordinary comfort of other occupiers, such as appropriation of property, trespass, and exclusion from use of common areas, constitutes nuisance or annoyance under section 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.

Headnote:
BOMBAY RENTS, HOTEL AND LODGING HOUSE RATES CONTROL ACT, 1947 - SECTION 13(1)(C) - NUISANCE OR ANNOYANCE - INTERPRETATION - APPLICATION - TRESPASS - APPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY - INTERFERENCE WITH COMFORT AND ENTITLEMENTS - CONDUCT AFFECTING REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS OF LIFE - BALANCE BETWEEN FAIR AND UNFAIR - JUSTIFICATION AND CLAIMS TO PROPERTY - CONTINUING NUISANCE OR ANNOYANCE NOT REQUIRED.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a tenant, was subjected to a decree for possession under section 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, for causing nuisance and annoyance to the respondents, the landlords, by appropriating the terrace of the building, putting flower pots, and excluding others from its use.
Finding of the Court:

The courts below concurrently found that the petitioner's acts constituted nuisance and annoyance, causing material interference with the ordinary comfort of the respondents as occupiers of the property.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's conduct amounted to nuisance or annoyance under section 13(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Whether the appropriation of the terrace and exclusion of others from its use constituted trespass and interference with the respondents' entitlements.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The terms "nuisance" and "annoyance" are of wide amplitude and cannot be fenced by any definite meaning. 2. Nuisance is an unlawful interference with a person's use, enjoyment, or entitlement of property or rights therein, causing material interference with the ordinary comfort of human existence. 3. Annoyance is a wider term than nuisance and includes all that is disagreeable to good sense and against fair and just habitation, affecting the ordinary pleasure and comfort of occupants. 4. The conduct in issue must be objectively appreciated in the context of the rights and enjoyment of property and the entitlements of persons to peaceful and comfortable living. 5. Acts of trespass, appropriation of property, and interference with the reasonable comfort and entitlements of other occupiers constitute nuisance or annoyance. 6. The defense of justification or claims to property cannot negate the existence of nuisance or annoyance when unilateral appropriation and disregard for others' comfort are present.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the decree for possession was upheld.

JUDGMENT - B.A. MASODKAR, J.:---The petitioner is the tenant. He has been subjected to a decree for possession under section 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the trial Court and that decree has been affirmed by the Appeal Court. The petitioner-tenant questions that decree in this writ petition.

2. The landlords, who are the respondents, are the purchasers of this property. They became owners by reason of their purchase on December 26, 1968. The respondents-landlords are the occupants of the second floor premises in the same building. The petitioner tenant who was inducted as the tenant prior to the purchase by the predecessors of the landlords, is the tenant with regard to three rooms on the third floor and one room called a "terrace room" on the top floor, which is the terrace floor. The respondents landlords served a notice as per Ex. 184 complaining of the conduct of the petitioner-tenant that he had trespassed on the terrace of the top floor of the building and had appropriated a major portion of the terrace by putting flower pots and further he was excluding everyone, including the respondents-landlords, to the use of the said terrace. He was using water from the water tank on the top floor directly for the purpose of maintaining a garden of flower pots to the deteriment of other occupiers. He was using the entire terrace as the part of his exclusive property by putting stones, and all that was necessary to keep up the flower plants and for nursing and tending the flower plants. Eventually, the suit was filed that all these amounted to nuisance and annoyance. The petitioner-tenant took the stand that the entire terrace was part of his tenement and that he was exclusively entitled to use the same to the exclusion of others. He further asserted that he was justified in putting the flower pots in a part of the area of the terrace. That terrace admeasures 90' x 50'.

3. Both the courts below concurrently found in favour of the respondents-landlords and against the petitioner-tenant's claim that the terrace was the part of his tenement. Further, they found that the acts of the petitioner-tenant with regard to the said terrace in appropriating the same for putting the flower pots, though large in number, excluding others from its use and also taking water directly for watering the flower plant all constituted together the acts of nuisance and annoyance. Even during the course of the trial the petitioner-tenant categorically stated on oath that he would not allow the respondent-landlords to use the terrace as of right. Having taken that oath into account, both the courts below have found that the provisions of section 13(1)(c) were squarely attracted.

4. Considerable arguments were advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant by Mr. Dalvi to submit that the petitioner-tenant could not be held guilty of nuisance or annoyance by reason of his hobby and an assertion of title to the entire terrace. The learned Counsel submitted that the approach of the courts below had not been fair and is affected by technical considerations. Only because the petitioner-tenant failed to establish his right of the terrace, if did not follow that he caused nuisance or annoyance to the respondents-landlords. Who are the immediate occupiers of the property.

5. As against this, Mr. Abhyankar supported the decree by pointing out that the conduct of the petitioner-tenant was highly objectionable, irritating and annoying as without entitlement he appropriated the terrace which was the property of the respondents-landlords and to which the respondents-landlord were, as of right, entitled. In the city like Pune, a terrace at the top floor is a place which affords a facility of reasonable comfort and pleasure and here was the tenant who not only appropriated it to his own use by putting several pots of roses but expressed on oath that he would exclude everyone fr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document