1. - This second appeal has been filed by plaintiff against judgment and decree passed by District Judge, Ajmer, dated 07.10.1987, who thereby upheld judgment and decree passed by learned Munsiff, Ajmer City, Ajmer, dated 18.01.1975.

2. Plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against defendant in court of learned Munsiff, Ajmer City (East), Ajmer, for ejectment and recovery of rent on the ground of nuisance and damage to suit-premise and also for recovery of arrears of rent. Learned Munsiff decreed the suit with regard to recovery of arrears of rent of Rs. 450/- and rate of rent was quantified at Rs. 450/-, however, dismissed the suit for ejectment. Aggrieved thereby plaintiff filed an appeal before learned District Judge, which too was dismissed.

3. I have heard Shri Manu Bhargava, learned counsel for plaintiff-appellant and Shri N.K. Maloo, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vinod Kumar Tamoliya, for defendant-respondent.

4. Shri Manu Bhargava, appearing on behalf of appellant, argued that second appeal seeks to challenge judgment passed by learned courts below recording concurrent finding of nuisance and damages to suit-premises against the plaintiff. Ground on which eviction of defendant-tenant was sought by plaintiff-appellant in the suit was that though the premise in question was let out for residential purpose but the defendant and his other family members have created nuisance in the house by keeping and tethering large number of cows/she-buffaloes, which is otherwise a very small compound. Defendant made the house very dirty and unhygienic. Family members of defendant have stored fodder on roof of the house. They keep cows and she-buffaloes within the compound of let out premise. Apart from this, it was also asserted that septic-tank in the house has been damaged on account of their keeping cows, she-buffaloes etc. A common issue no.3 was framed for both, nuisance and damages, which has been concurrently decided against plaintiff by learned two courts below. Hence this second appeal on behalf of plaintiff.

5. This court, while admitting the appeal on 23.08.1989, framed following substantial questions of law for adjudication:-

"Whether keeping and tethering of cows and she-buffaloes by the respondent and stacking of fodder for them, in the facts and circumstances of the case, amounts to creation of nuisance by the defendant-respondent and if the defendant-respondent liable to ejectment from the demised premises on this ground."

6. Shri Manu Bhargava, learned counsel for appellant, has argued that learned courts below have failed to appreciate true meaning and import of word 'nuisance' despite clear evidence on record and admission of the witnesses of the defendant to the effect that there were 13 cattle viz., cows, she-buffaloes etc., and nuisance was created in the meaning of Section 13(1)(d) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The finding of the courts below thus suffers from gross perversity, that calls for interference even in second appeal within the scope of second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by this court. Learned counsel in this respect referred to statements of plaintiff's witnesses as also defendants. He argued that PW-1 A.J. Massey, in his statement, stated he gave one room measuring 12'x14', another room measuring 10'x12', a small room measuring 8'x8' and half chowk to defendant-tenant on rent for residence. Defendant, however, started keeping cows and she-buffaloes therein which created lot of dirt and animal waste. His septic tank was also damaged. The fodder was stored on the roof of the house and goats were also kept on the roof. The house was let out for residence of the defendant and not for running a dairy farm. Tenant in the adjoining house for several times made complaints of the bad smell due to the waste of cows and she-buffaloes and goats etc. kept by the defendant. For some time in the beginning, plaintiff did not complain when