S.L. Jain, J.

Invoking appellate jurisdiction of this Court u/s 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 the Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the legality, validity, propriety and correctness of the judgment and decree dated 2-1-2003. passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge. Katni, in Civil Suit No. 31-A/2002.

The facts which led to filing of this appeal are that the Plaintiff/Appellant filed a suit against the Defendant/Respondent stating that she is the owner of a building situate at Katni. Originally, the building belonged to her father-in-law, late Dr. Mangatram V. Lalwani, who bequeathed the same to her by executing a will dated 24-9-1991. The Defendant was the tenant of late Dr. Mangatram in four flats of the aforesaid building. After the death of Dr. Mangatram the Plaintiff, on the basis of a Will executed by Dr. Mangatram. became the owner and landlady of the said building including the three flats which are the subject matter of the present suit. The Defendant/Respondent is now the tenant of the Plaintiff/Appellant in the said three flats on a monthly rent of Rs. 3,000/-. Earlier in the year 1993 the rent of the suit flats was Rs. 2.000/- per month. Subsequently, in the year 1994 it was enhanced to Rs. 3.000/- per month during the lifetime of late Dr. Mangatram. Dr. Mangatram had orally informed the Plaintiff in presence of her husband, Shri Ashok Lalwani, that the Defendant is tenant in the suit-accommodation on monthly rent of Rs. 3,000/- which is liable to be increased at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month every year.

It is averred in the plaint that in addition to the aforesaid three flats the Defendant is in occupation of one more flat on the first floor of the said building regarding which a suit for eviction and arrears of rent registered as Civil Suit No. 30-A/95 was pending in the Court of Civil Judge Class I. Murwara. The rent of this flat has been stated to be Rs. 600/- per month.

The Plaintiff has pleaded that the Defendant, under some confusion or deliberately used to send Rs. 2,061/- per month to the Plaintiff by way of rent for all the four flats in his occupation out of which Rs. 1,461/- were intended to be sent as rent for three flats and remaining Rs. 600/- for the fourth flat. The Defendant did not pay any rent from March, 1995. The Plaintiff herself and through her husband, who is her power of attorney holder, tried to pursue the Defendant to pay the rent but he avoided the same by making false assurances. Therefore, she served a notice on the Defendant through her counsel demanding arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month. On receipt of the notice the Defendant denied the arrears of rent and disputed the rate of rent, but on 18-12-1995 sent to the Plaintiff a bank draft for Rs. 16,488/-. According to the Plaintiff. after adjusting the amount sent to her by way of bank draft an amount of Rs. 32,183/- towards the arrears of rent still remains due against the Defendant.

The Plaintiff also pleaded that late Dr. Mangatram had installed a jet pump to fetch water through the tube-well in the suit-premises, but the Defendant along with Meghraj and Narayan Basrani, the other tenants, without the permission of landlord, got installed another jet pump in the suit-premises to fetch the water. This jet pump was installed by digging another tube-well at a distance of about 5 to 8 feet from the earlier tube-well of the landlord which caused obstruction in the common passage and the supply of water from the tube-well of the landlord was substantially affected. This act of the Defendant adversely and substantially affected the interest of the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff put forth that the Defendant, his employees and the patients throw cotton, bandages and other materials which choke and obstruct sewage and other pipe lines and also result in an obnoxious smell. Thus, the tenant has committed nuisance. In the written statement filed by the Defendant in the earlier Civil Suit No. 30-A/95 pending in