Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUBRAMANI
S. Suresh and Others - Appellant
Versus
Isabal Thomas and Another - Respondents
C.R.P. No. 1228 of 1999
Decided On : 11 June 1999
EVICTION - NUISANCE - TAMIL NADU BUILDINGS (LEASE AND RENT CONTROL) ACT, 1960 - SECTION 10(2)(V) - NUISANCE MUST BE SUBSTANTIAL AND ACTIONABLE - MERE INCONVENIENCE OR ANNOYANCE NOT SUFFICIENT - REVISION POWERS UNDER SECTION 25 OF THE ACT - SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS.
Fact of the Case:
Landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant under Section 10(2)(v) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, alleging that the tenant was a nuisance to the neighbors and other occupants of the building.
Finding of the Court:
The Rent Controller and the appellate authority dismissed the petition, finding that the landlord had failed to prove that the tenant's conduct amounted to actionable nuisance.
Issues: Whether the concurrent findings of the authorities below that the tenant's conduct did not amount to actionable nuisance are illegal, improper, or irregular, warranting interference under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the landlord had failed to adduce evidence to establish that the tenant's conduct amounted to actionable nuisance. The Court noted that the tenant had been running an automobile workshop in the premises since the inception of the tenancy, and that the landlord had let out the premises for that purpose. The Court also noted that the neighbors had moved into the area long after the tenant had established his workshop. The Court further held that the evidence of the landlord's witnesses was disbelieved by the authorities below, and that the Court would not interfere with those findings. The Court also held that the revisional powers under Section 25 of the Act are limited, and that the Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact made by the authorities below unless they are wholly unreasonable.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the landlord had failed to make out a ground for interference with the concurrent orders of the authorities below.
The Order of the Court was as follows :
Landlord, who was defeated in both the Courts below have come to this Court challenging the correctness of orders under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
2. According to the landlord, the concurrent findings of the authorities below are illegal, improper and irregular and therefore the same are liable to be interfered with under the revisional powers of this Court.
3. The only ground for eviction was that the respondent is a nuisance both to his neighbours and also the other occupants of the building and liable to be evicted under Section 10(2)(v) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
4. It is alleged in the rent control petition that by conducting workshop in the scheduled premises the noise is disturbing the locality and the smell of the paint is also affecting the atmosphere. It is also alleged that some of the employees of the respondent are taking bath openly in the premises naked and it is causing annoyance to the persons residing in the neighbourhood and in the vicinity. The premises is also not kept clean and that is also an added reason for the nuisance.
5. The said allegations are disputed by the respondent.
6. The Rent Controller took oral and documentary evidence. Three witnesses were examined on the side of the landlord apart from documentary evidence Exs. A1 to A9. Respondent also examined DW1 and produced Exs. D1 to D3. Commissioner's report and plans are marked as Exs. C1 to C3.
7. Trial Court after assessing the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the case put forward by the landlord is not true and witnesses examined on her side cannot be believed. The strained relationship between the landlord and the tenant even before filing the petition was also taken note of by the Rent Controller. Rent Controller held that the nuisance to be a cause of action for eviction, must be an actionable nuisance and that the same is not proved. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
8. The matter was taken in appeal in R.C.A. 1035 of 1994, but without success.
9. The only question that requires consideration in this revision is whether the concurrent findings of the authorities below are illegal, improper and irregular, so as to warrant interference under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
10. Section 10(2) (v) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act reads thus,
"10(2) - A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satisfied -
(i) to (iv) Omitted.
(v) that the tenant has been guilty of such acts and conduct which are a nuisance to the occupiers of other portions in the same building or of buildings in the neighbourhood."
11. Honourable Supreme Court had occasion to consider a similar provision of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 and the same is reported in (Narpatchand A. Bhandari v. Shantilal Moolshankar Jani). Their Lordships held that the landlord will not get possession of the building on the ground of nuisance or annoyance, unless the normal livings of such occupiers are affected. In paragraph 15 of the Judgment, their Lordships held thus,
"There are no statutory definitions of 'nuisance' or 'annoyance' which under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act constitute a ground for recovery of possession by landlord of a premises in the occupation of a tenant. In the case with which we are concerned, the acts of nuisance or annoyance complained of are committed by the tenant and persons residing with him in the premises which is a tenement (flat) lying amidst other tenements (flats) of the one and same storeyed building. The acts of the defendant or persons residing with him in the tenanted premises which are found as acts causing nuisance or annoyance to adjoining or neighbouring occupi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
