D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is tenants revision under Sec. 29 (2) of the bombay Rent Act. The brief facts giving rise to this revision are that the disputed premises was let out by the respondent to the revisionist on monthly rent of Rs. 150. 00 besides taxes. The tenant tell in arrears of rent exceeding six months. Hence, notice of demand under Sec. 12 of the Act was served on 28-9-1982. Neither the notice was complied with nor any reply was given. Hence, suit for eviction was filed. During the pendency of the suit amendment was sought in the plaint and eviction was sought on additional ground under Sec. 13 (l) (c) of the Act alleging that by the conduct of the tenant in usurping possession of one room illegally and forcing the landlady to face litigation upto the Apex Court for getting the said room vacated from the tenant amounted to annoyance and nuisance to the landlady.

( 2 ) THE trial Court dismissed the suit for eviction but granted decree for arrears of rent and also fixed the standard rent at Rs. 150. 00 p. m.

( 3 ) AN appeal was filed by the landlady and also a revision by tenant fixing standard rent. The revision was dismissed by the lower Court. The appeal was against the order of the trial Court refusing to grant decree for eviction which was filed by the landlady. The appeal was allowed and on ground of nuisance and annoyance to the landlady decree for possession was granted. It is, therefore, this revision.

( 4 ) IT will be necessary to mention that the suit was filed on 4-12-1982. Initially, in the plaint no allegation was made regarding nuisance and eviction was not sought under Sec. 13 (l) (c) of the Act. Subsequently, by getting the plaint amended this ground was also taken as ground for eviction of the tenant. In short, the allegations constituting nuisance are that the revisionist has forcibly taken possession of one northern room kept reserved for personal use and occupation of the landlady. Lock was broken and the room was forcibly occupied by the tenant. Belongings of the landlady were already there in this room. F. I. R. was attempted to be lodged but the police did not register any F. I. R. and directed the respondent to settle the issue amicably. Thereafter, complaint was filed by the landlady in competent Criminal court but there the tenant-revisionist was acquitted. Suit No. 237 of 1981 was filed by the landlady for the recovery of possession of this room alleging that the tenant committed trespass therein illegally. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. Appeal was also dismissed. The matter was taken up to Apex Court. There also decree of the trial Court was maintained. This act of the tenant, viz. , committing trespass and forcing the landlady to face litigation upto Apex Court caused annoyance to her which was ground for tenants eviction.

( 5 ) THE revisionist resisted the suit denying these allegations. The only point for consideration is whether this act of the revisionist amounted to nuisance or annoyance within the meaning of Sec. 13 (l) (c) of the Bombay Rent act. This section provides that the landlady shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises if the Court is satisfied that the tenant or any person residing with the tenant has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to the adjoining or neighboring occupiers, or has been convicted of using the premises or allowing the premises to be used for immoral or illegal purposes.

( 6 ) THE suit for eviction of tenant under this provision could be filed only on the allegation that the tenant or any person residing with him has been guilty of conduct which is nuisance or annoyance to the adjoining or neighboring occupiers. Likewise, if the tenant has been convicted for using the premises or allowing the same to be used for illegal or immoral purposes then also he can be evicted under this section.

( 7 ) THE case of the landlady is that the conduct of the tenant amounts to nuisance or annoyance to the adjoining or ne

Click Here to Read the rest of this document