Mere quarrels among households do not constitute nuisance under Section 13(1)(d) of the Rajasthan Premises Control of Rent & Eviction Act, 1950.

1. - This is a defendant's second appeal in a suit for arrears of rant and eviction which was dismissed by the Munsif (North), Kota (trial court') though decreed by the Additional Civil Judge, Kota (lower appellate court').

2. In brief. the facts giving rise to this second appeal are that, the plain- tiffs (Mangalchand & Bhuramal who died during the pendency of the appeal before the lower appellate court and is now being represented by his legal representatives brought on record) have tiled a suit for eviction of the suit premises as well as recovery of arrears of rent due against the defendant appellant The case of the plaintiff's is that the suit of mists was let out to the defendant-appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 35/-. The eviction from the suit premises was sought on the ground of default in payment of rent, and that the tenant (defendants has created a nuisance as defines in Section 13(l) (d) of the Rajasthan Premises control of Rent & Eviction) Act 1'1 "o (for short. 'the Act'). As regards the nuisance, it was averred in the plaint that the defendant and his family members used abusive language with the plaintiffs; on 9 8.73, the appellant's son had quarrel with Mangalchand in furtherance to giving heating to Mangalchand and on 10.8 .73, the son of the defendant also gave beating to Bhuramal (deceased-plaintiff) with a belt; and that, on account of such misbehaviour and misdeed on the part of the defendant-tenant the plaintiff's are unable to let out other vacant parts of the suit premises because looking to the conduct of the defendant and his family members no persons , are prepared to take premises on rent, as a result of which the plaintiffs area facing great loss. The plaintiffs have also given one incident which took place with Birdhi Chand who was also residing just near to the suit premises which was a part of the plaintiff's house. Birdhi Chand is alleged to have left the place on account of behaviour of the defendant a id his family members.

3. The defendant-appellant denied all the above mentioned allegations, averring it to be frivolous and that neither the defendants made any default in payment of rent nor he misbehaved with the plaintiffs or their family members. As regards Bridhichand. the defendant stated that Bridhichand left the premises of the plaintiffs at his own instance and because of Bridhichand being in near relations of the plaintiffs, this case is planned against the defendant. According to the defendant, the plaintiffs liked to increase the rent to which the defendant did not agree and as such, the present suit has been filed.

4. After framing of the necessary issues and recording the evidence adduced by the parties, and then hearing the parties, the learned trial court decided all the issues against the plaintiffs and rejected the ground of nuisance. Therefore, ultimately the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. Against this dismissal, the plaintiffs went in appeal which was allowed by the first appellate court and the plaintiff's suit was decreed. Hence, this second appeal.

5. I have perused the entire record and have heard the learned councel. Shri Ajay Bajpai for the defendant-appellant and Shrt J.S. Rastogi on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents.

6. In the instant case, the only point considered by the Subordinate Courts and to be considered by this Court is whether the plaintiffs-respondents are/were entitled to a decree of eviction against the defendant appellant on the ground set forth in Section 13 (I) (d) of the Act?

7. Shri Bajpai for the tenant urged that mere using abusive language which was also not pleaded by the plaintiffs in their plaint, cannot provide shelter for getting a decree of eviction to the plaintiffs. Shri Bajpai submitted that while discussing the matter with regard to the incident of 9.8.73 & 10-8-73 the trial court came to the conclusion that the aforesaid dated incident has not been proved by the plaintiffs The plaintiffs have failed to prove the ingred