JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:---The petitioner who has suffered decree for eviction for causing nuisance and annoyance to the landlord and neighbouring occupiers at the hands of the courts below has preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein are original plaintiffs and they filed suit for eviction against the petitioner (original defendant). The eviction was sought on two grounds viz., (i) that the suit premises were in dilapidated condition and it was dangerous for the personal safety and the safety of the property and since the local authority has directed the landlord to demolish the said building, the premises are required under section 13(1)(hh) of the Bombay Rent Control Act and (ii) that the defendant was guilty of causing nuisance to the adjoining occupiers of the suit premises. The suit was contested by the defendant and after recording the evidence, the trial Court negatived plaintiffs' case for eviction under section 13(1)(hh) but granted the decree for eviction under section 13(1)(c) that is the defendant was guilty of causing nuisance to the adjoining occupiers. The defendant preferred appeal but was unsuccessful since the IIIrd Addl. District Judge, Solapur who heard the appeal dismissed the same on 16-11-1988.

3. Both the courts below have held the defendant guilty of causing nuisance and annoyance on two counts viz. that the defendant has been unnecessarily litigating against the plaintiffs in civil matters and also by launching criminal case and secondly, that the defendant by his behaviour and conduct by frequently quarrelling, assaulting and abusing the neighbouring occupiers is guilty of nuisance.

4. The appeal Court in para 9 has dealt with civil suits pending between the parties and the criminal case initiated by defendant against the plaintiffs and held that by such litigation and the conduct, the defendant is guilty of nuisance since he has made plaintiffs' life uncomfortable. The trial Court in paras 11 and 12 has dealt with the litigation between the parties and concluded that such litigation between the parties was an act of nuisance. The first question that arises for consideration is whether civil litigation between the parties and a criminal case launched by the defendant against the plaintiffs would furnish a ground for eviction under section 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rent Control Act. Earlier a civil suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 249 of 1976 was filed by the plaintiffs for possession against the defendant. In that suit, standard rent was fixed by compromise of the parties. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed the present suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 306 of 1982 for possession. In this suit the defendant again applied fixation of standard rent. It appears that one suit was filed by the petitioner for specific performance of agreement for sale and for injunction against the respondents and ultimately, the said suit was dismissed. The petitioner preferred appeal against the dismissal of his suit for specific performance and injunction and further Letters Patent Appeal but was unsuccessful. One more suit was filed by the petitioner for injunction restraining the respondents from selling the suit premises to any third party which was registered as Regular Civil Suit No. 484 of 1981 and the said suit was also ultimately dismissed as not maintainable. Yet, another suit was filed by the petitioner against the respondents seeking permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with his right of repairing the suit premises but the said suit was ultimately withdrawn. An application was made by the petitioner to the Corporation in which it was stated that some water was leaking in the bathroom on the basis of which a case was initiated by the Municipal Corporation against the respondents under section 184(1) of B.M.C. Act. Can it be said that by making application for fixation of standard rent in the present suit, filing of various s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document