The legal point established is that for eviction under Section 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, the nuisance or annoyance caused by the tenant must be of a gross, unusual, and persistent nature, and must significantly interfere with the landlord's use or enjoyment of the property.

1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment dated 28/10/1988 passed by the 5th Joint Civil Judge, J.D. Jalgaon in Regular Civil Suit No.530/1985 by which the original defendant was held guilty of causing nuisance and annoyance u/s 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 1947 Act) and was directed to vacate the possession of the tenanted portion. The petitioner is further aggrieved by the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Jalgaon dated 20/06/1996 delivered in Civil Appeal No.322/1988, filed by the defendant, confirming the order of the Trial Court.

2. The petitioner/original defendant and the respondent/original plaintiff having passed away, are represented by their LR’s.

3. Prayer clause 10(A) set out in the petition reads as under :-

“That, the record and proceedings of the judgment and order dated 28/10/1988 and 17/01/1998 passed by Vth Joint Civil Judge, J.D. Jalgaon in Regular Civil Suit No.530/1985 as confirmed by the judgment and decree, dated 20.6.1996 passed by Additional District Judge, Jalgaon in Civil Appeal No.322/88, be called for and after examining the legality, validity and propriety thereof, both the judgments and orders as mentioned above and annexed to the present writ petition at Exhs. A and B hereto be quashed and set aside, and the Regular Civil Suit No.530/85 filed by respondent-plaintiff for possession be dismissed with costs;”

4. All the respondents, who are legal heirs of the original plaintiff Ramkrushna Hari Wani, have been brought on record and have been served by Court notice. Despite service and though this matter was adjourned on a number of occasions to enable them to participate in the proceedings, none have caused an appearance either in person or through an Advocate.

5. This petition was admitted by order dated 31/07/1996 and interim relief was specifically granted in the following terms:

“ Heard counsel for both parties. Rule. Interim stay as to possession on usual terms. It is made clear that it is open for the respondent landlord to have the use of terrace also if he so desires, through his own gate.”

A) Amarchand Harakchand Kaswa Vs. Ramanlal Shantilal Porwal and others [1981 Bom.C.R.489]

B) Kashinath Shankar Gambhire Vs. Sudha Gopal Patil and others [AIR 2000 Bom.493 = 2001(1) Mh.L.J. 672]

C) P.D.Trivedi Vs.Chandanben M.Shah [(1999) 1 GLR 355]

7. For the sake of brevity, the petitioners would be referred to as the original tenant and the respondents would be referred to as the original landlord, keeping in view their status before the trial Court.

8. The landlord who was in possession of the Municipal House No.314 in City Survey No.2659/10/2 at Joshi Peth, Jalgaon, had a double storeyed building. He owned the said building. He had a terrace on the 2nd floor which opened on to a ‘Varanda’ admeasuring 13 x 9 feet. One room admeasuring 13 x 14 feet was being occupied by the tenant.

9. The landlord preferred a suit before the Trial Court seeking eviction of the tenant on the following grounds :-

(a) The tenant is causing nuisance and annoyance by using the terrace.

(b) The tenant is in arrears of rent for more than 6 months.

(c) The tenant is unauthorizedly using the terrace which is not rented out to him.

10. By the impugned judgment dated 28/10/1988, the tenant was held guilty of causing nuisance to the landlord by using the terrace. Rest of the issues were answered in the negative and the landlord was held entitled to a vacant possession of the room on the second floor. The tenant was therefore ordered to be evicted.

11. The landlord did not approach the Appellate Authority. It was the tenant who preferred his proceedings before the Appellate Authority challenging the judgment of the Trial Court. As such, the conclusions of the Trial Court holding that the tenant was not a defaulter, he is willing to pay the arrears of rent and is also willing to pay the permitted increase in the rent