HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. B. Mukharji
AMARENDRA NATH - Appellant
Versus
BIBHUTI BHUSON - Respondent
Civil Suit 1203 Of 1948
Decided On : FEBRUARY 28, 1952
CALCUTTA RENT ORDINANCE, 1946 - SECTION 12 (1) (C) - CONDITION OF TENANCY - BREACH - NUISANCE OR ANNOYANCE - CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION 14 - NOTICE TO QUIT - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a landlord, filed a suit against the defendant, a tenant, for possession of the top floor of the premises No. 115, Lower Circular Road, Calcutta. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had breached a condition of tenancy, which was to behave properly and not use filthy and abusive language towards the plaintiff or his agents. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant had been guilty of conduct amounting to nuisance and annoyance to the occupiers of adjoining or neighbouring premises.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the condition of tenancy was as pleaded by the plaintiff and that the defendant had breached the condition by using abusive language against the plaintiff and his agent. The court also found that the defendant's conduct amounted to nuisance and annoyance to the occupiers of adjoining or neighbouring premises, including the plaintiff himself.
Issues: 1. Were the conditions and terms of tenancy as pleaded in para. 9 of the plaint true? 2. Was there any breach by the defendant as alleged in para. 10 of the plaint? 3. Has the defendant been guilty of conduct amounting to nuisance and/or annoyance under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Calcutta Rent Ordinance of. 1946? 4. (a) Is the suit one in which non-compliance with the provisions of the Ordinance as to payment or deposit of rent has been taken as a ground for such eviction? (b) If so, is the suit maintainable without the Rent Controller's order in writing to institute such suit? 5. Is the notice to quit valid and legal? 6. To what reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendant had breached the condition of tenancy and had been guilty of conduct amounting to nuisance and annoyance to the occupiers of adjoining or neighbouring premises. The court also held that the suit was not one in which non-compliance with the provisions of the Ordinance as to payment or deposit of rent had been taken as a ground for eviction, and therefore, the plaintiff was not required to obtain the Rent Controller's permission to institute the suit. The court further held that the notice to quit was valid and legal.
Final Decision: The court granted the plaintiff a decree for possession, mesne profits, and costs.
( 1 ) THIS is a suit instituted on 15th day of April 1948. In this suit the plaintiff claims to recover possession of the top floor of premises No. 115, Lower Circular Road, Calcutta. The plaintiff's case, briefly, is that the defendant was a monthly tenant of the said premises of which one of the important conditions was that the defendant would behave properly and/or never use any filthy and abusive language towards the plaintiff or his agents It is a curious condition to find as a term of tenancy but the events will show how it came to be incorporated as a condition. I will describe this condition as the condition of good behaviour. The plaintiff alleges breach of this condition and pleads in para. 10 that the defendant has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance and/or annoyance to occupiers of adjoining or neighbouring premises and continuously uses most abusive and filthy language and threats himself and by the members of his family and that he is liable to be ejected under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Calcutta Rent Ordinance of 1946. The notice to quit was given on 6th December 1947.
( 2 ) IN the written statement, the defendant takes a number of pleas. It is denied that any condition of tenancy is broken. It takes the plea that the notice is invalid and there is also reference to say that the plaintiff exercised some kind of an undue influence. It is specifically denied in the written statement that the defendant ever ill-treated or abused the plaintiff or his agents,
( 3 ) THE following issues were raised. (1) Were the conditions and terms of tenancy as pleaded in para. 9 of the plaint true ? (2) Was there any breach by the defendant as alleged in para. 10 of the plaint ? (3) Has the defendant been guilty of conduct amounting to nuisance and/or annoyance under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Calcutta Rent Ordinance of. 1946 ? (4) (a) Is the suit one in which non-compliance with the provisions of the Ordinance as to payment or deposit of rent has been taken as a ground for such eviction? (b) If so, is the suit maintainable without the Rent Controller's order in writing to institute such suit ? (5) Is the notice to quit valid and legal ? (6) To what reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?
( 4 ) ISSUE No. 1.-In para. 9 of the plaint three conditions of the tenancy of the defendant are pleaded. One relates to what I have already referred to, namely, a condition of good behaviour, the exact language of which I will presently quote. The other relates to the regular payment of rent by the 15th of the month next following that for which the rent is payable. There is a third condition which says that violation of any of these terms would render the defendant liable to be ejected by the plaintiff.
( 5 ) THE allegations in para. 9 of the plaint are not distinctly and separately traversed but in paras. 5 and 6 of the written statement there is a general and combined reference to paras. 7, 8 and 9 of the plaint. In para. 6 of the written statement reference is made to a compromise and that compromise is said to have been under the exercise of undue influence by the plaintiff upon the defendant.
( 6 ) ON the documents this condition of good behaviour is proved by, first, a letter of 12th November 1944 and, subsequently, by a document and a letter both bearing the date 28th February 1947. The letter of 12th November 1944 is one written by the defendant. The original letter has been marked as Ex. D in this suit. It is in the hand of the defendant himself and signed by him. It reads and records as follows :"babu Amarendra Nath Ghosal, landlord of 115 Lower Circular Eoad, calcutta. I beg to mention that I am extremely sorry for myself, my son, and my wife and daughter for using abusive language to you and insulting you on the 1st of November last 1944 and I apologies for that and I undertake that this sort of abuse and insult do not recur again in future by either myself or any one of my family members. Yours faith
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.