Kundan Lal vs Amar Nath

D. Falshaw, J.—This is a tenant''s revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority ejecting the tenant after the landlord''s ejectment petition had been dismissed by the Rent Controller.

The only ground of ejectment with which we are concerned is that contained in Section 13(2)(iv) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act which reads-

that the tenant has been guilty of such acts and conduct as are a nuisance to the occupiers of buildings in the neighbourhood.

The landlord''s case on this point was based on the allegation that the tenant had taken unlawful possession of Tharra or platform adjacent to, but not forming part of the leased premises. The Rent Controller was of the opinion that it was not his business to go into that matter and he considered that if the tenant had in fact wrongly taken possession of the platform the proper course for the landlord was to institute the necessary legal proceedings for recovering possession of it. He also found that even if the tenant had taken possession of a Tharra which was not a part of the leased premises, this could not be a ground for eviction as it did not cause any nuisance either to the Petitioner or to the occupiers of the neighbouring buildings.

The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion on facts that the tenant''s pleas regarding his having taken possession of the platform were evasive, and that it must be held that he had taken possession of the platform not forming part of the leased premises, and that this amounted to a nuisance to the landlord justifying ejectment especially when there have been some security proceedings u/s 107 Criminal Procdure Code.

Regarding the latter point it is clear that on the 6th of December, 1960 the landlord had obtained an order from a Magistrate u/s 107 Code of Criminal Procedure for the furnishing of a bond in the sum of Rs. 1,000 with one surety for one year from the tenant Kundan Lal, but this order was held to be unjustified and set aside in appeal on the 6th of January, 1961 by an Additional Sessions Judge who found that the evidence did not justify the finding that there is any danger of breach of the peace and that the cause of the trouble was simply that the landlord wanted to evict the tenant from the leased premises.

On behalf of the landlord reliance was placed on the decision of J. L. Kapur, J. in Ram Chander v. Kidar Nath and Ors. (1954) 56 P.L.R. 18, in which the learned Judge observed that it was not the intention of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act to allow the landlord to be subject to security-proceedings u/s 107 Code of Criminal Procedure, nor was it meant to protect tenants who do not behave properly, and so where the relations between the landlord and the tenant were so strained that both of them were bound down u/s 107 Code of Criminal Procedure, the landlord should be allowed to take possession of the building if he applied for the ejectment of the ''tenant.

The facts of that case appear to be distinguishable in that in the present case at the time of the pendency of the proceedings neither party was bound down u/s 107 Code of Criminal Procedure and only an unsuccessful attempt had been made by the landlord to have the tenant bound down. However, at art from this, it does not seem to me that provisions of Section 13(2) (iv) have been examined and discussed by the learned Judge. I must repeat the words "such acts and conduct as are a nuisance to the occupiers of buildings in the neighbourhood." It seems to me that it must be held that the plural was deliberately used since it would have been quite easy to use the words "any occupier of any building in the neighbourhood" and that, therefore, conduct which amounts to a nuisance in the eyes of the landlord alone, even if he happens to occupy premises in the neighbourhood, or even in the same building as the leased premises, is not sufficient to justify ejectment u/s 13(2) (iv) of the Act. In the present case the landlord merely examined one or two witnesses regarding his own dispute with the tenant and did not produce any of the neighbours to state that they were in any way affected or inconvenienced by this dispute.

On behalf of the landlord it was contended that in fact further quarrels had taken place and that security proceedings were pending against both parties, but in dealing with the present petition I do not feel that I can take action on any subsequent events and if fresh grounds for eviction have come into existence since the decision of the present petition the landlord may, if so advised, institute fresh proceedings for ejectment. The result is that I accept the present petition and restore the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the ejectment petition. The parties, however, will bear their own costs.