The burden of proof for possession based on nuisance and annoyance lies with the landlord, and criminal acts by the tenant or their associates can be considered as evidence of nuisance under the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House rates control Act, 1947.

1. This petition is by the plaintiff-landlord. The petitioner-landlord, on or about 14th December 1978 filed Regular Civil Suit No.914 of 1978 in the Court of 5th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmednagar against the respondent in relation to the suit property in which the respondents are inducted as tenants. It is claimed by the petitioner that the suit property is located in Ward No.1, bearing City Survey No.52, Municipal House No.5806. It is further claimed by the petitioner that the defemdants-tenants are in possession of three rooms on the ground floor of which possession was sought. The possession was sought mainly on the ground of nuisance and annoyance i.e. Section 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House rates control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for the sake of brevity), bona fide need i.e. Section 13(1)(g), willful default – Section 12 (3) (a) and 12 (3) (b) of the Act.

2. The said suit was resisted by the tenant by filing written statement. The learned trial Court dismissed the said suit by judgment and order dated 28th October 1986 which was subject matter of challenge in Regular Civil Appeal No.56 of 1987. It appears that the tenant also preferred an application for fair rent which was answered against the tenant permitting him to file Civil Revision Application No.4 of 1987. We are concerned with the rejection of the claim of landlord qua the possession of the suit property, as the tenant has not questioned the findings recorded in the revision. The learned 4th Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar was pleased to dismiss the said appeal by judgment and order dated 10th February 1992. As such, the present petition against the concurrent findings.

3. The facts, as are necessary for consideration of issues involved in the present petition are as under:

4. The suit property narrated herein above which is located near Delhi Gate bearing City Survey No.52, Municipal House No.5806 was let out to defendant No.1-respondent herein at a monthly rent of Rs.23/- and the taxes were to be paid extra. The tenancy was created some twenty years back from the date of filing of suit i.e. from year 1978 and tenancy was to commence from 1st day of every month and was to end on last day of English calender.

5. The petitioner in the plaint claimed that the defendant No.1 was not using the premises properly and was indulged in activities which are damaging floor and structure of the house and also was keeping his boiler in between the entrance of the two rooms which has caused nuisance to the plaintiff-petitioner. It was also claimed that the respondent provoked the other tenants to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

6. In addition to above, it is claimed that the respondent, in collusion with step brother of the petitioner has broke open the lock on 5th September 1983. It is further claimed that the suit premises were required by the petitioner for his bona fide need, as according to him, the existing premises which are in his possession, are not sufficient.

7. In response to suit, the respondent – defendant No.1 has filed written statement at Exh.17 and denied the claim. So far as defendants No.2 to 10 are concerned, they being formal parties, are not arrayed as party-respondents in the present petition. It is claimed by defendant No.1 in his defence that the plaintiff has no right, title and interest to the suit property. The defendant No.1, having denied the claim of the plaintiff-petitioner, has proceeded to file an application for determination of standard rent.

8. Having regard to the claim put forth by the parties, learned trial Court has framed the following issues and answered the same accordingly.