LAWS(KAR)-1978-11-6

GOPAL VAMAN Vs. KRISHNAJI TATYARAO

Decided On November 22, 1978
GOPAL VAMAN Appellant
V/S
KRISHNAJI TATYARAO Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's revision petition and directed against the order of eviction dated 5-4-1975 passed by the Additional District Judge, Belgaum, in H.R.C.A.NO. 23 [74 reversing the order dated 6-3-1974 passed by the I Additional Munsiff, Belgaum, in H.R.C.No. 65/72 on the file of his Court C.T.S.No. 1792 1 consisting of three rooms with a bath room situate in Kelkarbag of which the petitioner is a monthly tenant in occupation, is the subject-matter of dispute.

(2.) While the respondent, who is admittedly a landlord of the premises in question, resides in a neighbouring house bearing C.T.S. No. 1791, two of his ther tenants namely ) Laxman (P.W. 2) and ii) Dattatreya (P.W. 3) reside in C.T.S.Nos. 1792/3 and 1792/2 respectively. There is no dispute that C.T.S.No.l792|1 in occupation of the tenant-revision petitioner and C.T.S. Nos. 1792|2 and 1792/3 are situated adjacent to one another. While the latter two face towards north, the former faces to east. There is a well and a privy common to all the three tenaments situated towards the west of C.T.S. No.l792|3, i.e., between CTSNo. 1791 in occupation of the landlord and C.T.S. No. 1792/3 in occupation of Laxman (P.W. 2).

(3.) On 18-12-1973 the land-lord made an application in the court of the Munsiff for eviction of the tenant on the ground of nuisance and annoyance metipned in Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), alleging, inter alia, the tenant and the members of his family were preventing the neighbouring tenants from going to well and latrine and constantly picking up quarrels and abusing them and thus disturbing their peaceful life; and the inspite of being repeatedly requested to live peacefully they were not heeding to his advice and that therefore, he issued a notice dated 11-10-197 terminating the tenancy But the tenant had adamantly continued to occupy the premises and he had therefore to make the application for his eviction.