The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the grounds for eviction under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, specifically regarding the definition of nuisance and annoyance and the determination of permanent construction.

1. These two cross writ petitions arise out of a Judgment and Order dated 19 February, 1994 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Pune, confirming a decree of eviction passed against the tenant in a suit of the landlady.

2. In view of the fact that these are cross petitions, for the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as “landlady and tenant”.

3. The landlady filed a suit against the tenant and her son, bearing civil suit no. 327 of 1985, in the Small Causes Court at Pune for eviction interalia on the grounds of damage to the suit property, permanent construction, nuisance and annoyance. The trial court held that the construction made by the tenant did not amount to a permanent construction and also did not cause any loss or damage to the property. The trial court, however, held that the tenant was guilty of a conduct which amounted to nuisance and annoyance to the landlady and passed a decree for eviction on the ground of nuisance and annoyance. Aggrieved by the decision, tenant and her son filed an appeal being civil appeal no. 701 of 1990 against the decree of eviction passed against her on the ground of nuisance and annoyance. The landlady filed a cross-objection contending that the decree for eviction ought to have been passed also on the ground of permanent construction and damage to the property.

4. By a judgment and order dated 19 February, 1994, the appellate court confirmed the findings of the trial court on all counts. The appellate court confirmed the findings of the trial court that the alterations made in the suit premises by the tenant were not of a permanent nature and also held that the alterations did not cause any damage to the property so as to entitle the landlady for a decree for eviction under section 13(1)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short the “Rent Act”). The appellate court also confirmed the finding of the trial court that the tenant had caused nuisance and annoyance to the landlady and confirmed the decree for eviction of the tenant.

5. Aggrieved by the decree for eviction, the tenant and her son have filed writ petition no. 2124 of 1994. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Court, refusing to pass a decree on other two grounds of permanent construction and damage to the property, the landlady has filed writ petition no. 1477 of 1995. Both these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.

6. The premises at house no. 856, Shivajinagar, Bhandarkar Institute Road, Pune is a two storeyed building. It was constructed by Dr. Sitaram Vishnu Sathe, the father of the landlady, in the year 1930. The landlady is in occupation of the ground floor while the entire first floor is in occupation of the tenant. The first floor consists of one hall, four rooms and a gallery. There is a Mori in one of the rooms. There is no independent latrine either on the ground floor or on the first floor. However, in one corner of the plot there are common latrines and they were used by the landlady as well as the tenant in common. Flooring of the first floor is made up with wooden planks except at the place of Mori where it is of shahabad stones. Husband of the present tenant had taken the suit premises on rent from the father of the landlady some time in the year 1943 or thereabout. Initially the rent agreed was Rs.75/per month. However, on an application made by the tenant, the rent was reduced to Rs.53.70/per month. During his life time, Dr. Sitaram Sathe, the father of the landlady had filed a suit for eviction of the present tenant’s husband but that suit was dismissed and as stated earlier, the rent was reduced from Rs.75/to Rs.53.70/per month. Since the decision of that suit, the tenant’s husband and after him his widow continue in possession of the suit premises as a statutory tenant.

7. On 12 September, 1984, the tenant had a fall in the compound of the suit building which resulted into a fracture of her left leg