Bhagwan Dass vs Kaushalya Devi

This is tenant''s petition against whom ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller but eviction order was passed in appeal.

Milkhi Ram was the original owner landlord of the house in dispute of which the premises in dispute is a part. He died in the year 1980 and thus, his widow Kaushalya Devi became landlady-owner of the premises in dispute: She filed the present ejectment application dt. 18-12-1981, inter alia, on the grounds that the tenant had changed the user of the premises without her consent whereas her deceased husband had let out the premises for sale of the cycles but now the tenant was carrying on repair work and had also installed welding apparatus; that the tenant is a source of nuisance to her and the other occupiers of the building in the neighbourhood; that he had damaged the floor and walls of the shop and thus materially impaired its value and utility. In the written statement the tenant, controverted the said allegations of the landlady and pleaded that he had been selling and repairing cycles from the date of his induction as tenant and has not installed any welding apparatus. He also pleaded that he had never caused any obstruction or annoyance to the landlady and the other occupiers of the building in the neighbourhood.

Learned Rent Controller found that the tenant has been on the work of cycle repairs and thus, there was no change of user. On the question of nuisance, the Rent Controller found that "so it cannot be said that the respondent is a nuisance to the neighbourers and occupiers of the building. The husband of the applicant never took such objection in his previous application. Although, it has been admitted by the, applicant that the respondent is committing nuisance for the last 10/12 years." In view of these findings, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal; the learned Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the Rent Controller on the question of nuisance and came to the conclusion that "in the present case, in my considered opinion, the petitioner has proved that the respondent is a source of nuisance to the occupiers of the building in the neighbourhood." In view of that finding, the eviction order was passed. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this petition in this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation that the tenant has installed welding apparatus was factually wrong and in any event if it was there, no licence was required for the same and thus it could not be said to have caused any nuisance or disease as found by the learned Appellate Authority. In support of this contention, a reference was made to Phunan Ram Chandan Lal v. M.C. Kharar. . It was also contended that it is not the inconvenience of the landlady because she will always feel inconvenient but it was for the neighbours to come forward and make any complaint of nuisance, if any. According to the learned counsel, there was no evidence of any neighbour. The two witnesses, AW 2 Diwan Chand and AW 3 Gurbachan Singh are just passers--by and therefore, their evidence could not be relied upon. In support of this contention, he referred to Ishar Dass v. Sadhu Ram Harbans Lal. On the other hand, learned counsel for the landlady, submitted that from the evidence on the record, particularly, the photographs, it has been proved that the tenant was carrying on welding work in the shop in dispute and it is causing a great nuisance. Moreover, the tenant has obstructed the passage to the house of the landlady by placing cycles in front of the door. Thus argued, the learned counsel, for the appreciation of the entire evidence, the finding arrived at by the learned Appellate Authority should not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. Apart from that the tenant was of quarrelsome nature, particularly, after the death of Milkhi Ram, the husband of the landlady, there being no male member in the family, the tenant has started misbehaving and a welding plant has also been installed thereafter. According to the learned counsel, the nuisance is amply proved on the record. In support of his contention, he referred to Gulam Husain Mirza v. Laxmidas Premji (1984) RCR 411(Bom).

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant evidence on the record. Of course, the earlier ejectment application was filed by Milkhi Ram against the tenant but the said application was filed for non-payment of rent only. It appears that the tenant was not paying rent regularly. In any case, the trouble seems to have started after the death of Milkhi Ram because there was no male member to look after the family. There is evidence an. the record in the form of photographs Exhibits A. 3 and A. 4, wherein it has been shown that a welding plant was there. Thus, the case set up by the tenant in the written statement that there was no welding set, was found to be false. On appreciation of the entire evidence the learned Appellate Authority found that "the wrongful escape of gas which injuriously affects the health of the landlady''s son the continuous blockade of the passage and the road in front of her house, noise of hammering, and the glare produced by the welding set, quarrelsome and abusive behaviour of the respondent, are certainly such acts which, according to the plain, sober and simple notions are bound to amount to nuisance '' within the purview of the Act for eviction of the respondent from the demised premises". Prior to the filing of the ejectment application, the landlady had to make complaint to the police vide copy Exhibit A. 2 dt, 10-11-1981 for misbehaviour and abusive language by the tenant. Since no cognizable offence as such was made out, no action could be taken thereon and she filed present ejectment. application. According to Bombay High Court judgment reported as Gulam Hussain Mirza v. Laxmidas Premji (,1984-1 Ren CR 411)(supra) all that conduct which is offensive, quarrelsome or violent, unethical in juxtaposition of peaceful, civil and by ordinary standard ethical would be within the mischief of S. 13(1)(c) of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. Therein import of the term nuisance was '' being considered. According to the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, a tenant is liable to be ejected if he has been guilty of such acts and conduct as are a nuisance to the occupiers of buildings in the neighbourhood. If the landlord himself is. occupying the premises in neighborhood, in the preset case the landlady is occupying the house of which the premises in dispute is a part, then any nuisance caused to her will ! fall within the mischief of S. 13(2)(iv). Of course if the landlord is not living in the neighbourhood in that situation, event the nuisance to occupiers of the building in the neighbourhood will also be a ground for eviction. The observation in Pirthi Raj v. Sardara that "this conduct on the part of the tenant may be a nuisance to the landlord himself; but that, under the law, is not enough. The neighbours must come forward and complain of the particular act and conduct of the tenant, which was nuisance to them" were made in the context of the facts of that case. Therein the tenant was alleged to have built a Kotha on the premises of the building which was not rented out to him. It was, therefore, observed that "even assuming for the sake of argument that the Kotha had been built on the vacant land owned by the landlord and which. had not been given on rent to the tenant, it cannot be held that this act on the part of the tenant would amount to nuisance within the meaning of S. 13(2)(iv), because there it has to be shown that the acts and conduct of the tenant were a nuisance to the occupiers of the buildings in the neighbourhood."

Moreover, what "is nuisance or annoyance" in a particular case may not be annoyance or nuisance in a different case as observed in D.B. Godse v. K.S. Ramachandra Iyer. Each case has to be judged on the facts of the particular case. For a landlady or landlord who is ailing from some disease, even the noise or disturbance caused by the normal use of the premises may amount to annoyance or nuisance. In the present case there is evidence on the record that setting up of welding plant in the premises in dispute is causing great annoyance to the landlady. According to her evidence, the health of her son was affected on that account and not only that, the tenant has blocked the passage of her house by placing cycles in front thereof and as and when he was approached to remove the same and vacate the passage, he misbehaved and abused the landlady in the presence of her young daughters. The one room in occupation of the tenant was rented out somewhere in 1963 when it was no more required by them. But now the tenant by his own act and conduct on account of the nuisance caused to the landlady. is liable to be ejected on that ground. In any case, I do not find any impropriety and illegality in the finding of the learned Appellate Authority as to be interfered with in this petition. Even if two views are possible, this by itself is no ground for interference.

Consequently, this petition fails and is dismissed with casts. However, the tenant is allowed three months'' time to vacate the premises provided an undertaking in writing is given before the learned Rent Controller within one month from today that after the expiry of the said period, the vacant possession will be handed over to the landlady and the rent for this period will be paid/deposited in advance by 10th. of every month.

Revision dismissed.

* Against order of Sh. A. S. Sodhi, Appellate Authority, Faridkot, D/- 3-3-1986.