D SRINIVASALU Vs. K SURYA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord is the petitioner. He filed a petition for eviction of the respondents from the petition-premises on the ground of wilful default and subletting and also on the ground of commission of acts of waste and nuisance. Roth the courts below have dismissed the petition holding that there is no wilful default and no sub-letting and that there were no acts of waste and nuisance by the tenant and it was held that the tenant was not liable to be evicted.

(2.) In this petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner restricted his argument only in regard to the prayer for eviction on the ground of commission of waste and nuisance. It is seen from the allegations in the petition that the acta of waste or nuisance complained of are two-fold. Firstly, the tenant has tampered with the water pipe line going to the overhead tank by cutting the pipeline in the middle putting a pipe and directly drawing water inside his house even before it reached the overhead tank. The second act of waste complained of Is that in order to store this water which he (tenant) thus illegally tapped, he has put up a water tank inside the building with no proper supporting walls endangering the utility and safety of the building itself. 3333 In the counter statement the tenant pleaded that when he complained of shortage of water sometime in June-July, 1975, the landlord advised him to construct a tub in the property itself and that it was only with his consent he put up that water tank. Though he uses the expression "water tub" as against the word "water tank" used by the landlord, the construction of this structure, is now admitted. The tenant would say that it was at the instance of the landlord the same was constructed but it was denied by the landlord. However, it is now found by the Courts below that the landlord has not permitted the construction. So far as the "T" pipe is concerned, the tenant completely denied having put the same, but, however, he did not say as to who put the "T" pipe. The Rent Controller by some curious reasoning thought that since there is no expert evidence to show that the construction of a tank had diminished the value or utility of the building, the landlord is not entitled to rely on the construction of the tank as an act of waste. This view was accepted by the appellate court. It is hardly necessary to state that if water is stored in a tank without proper support, the dampness will not only diminish the value of the building but also endanger the safety of the building itself. The tenant had not established that the landlord had permitted the construction of the water tank.

(3.) In fact, the petitioner - landlord examined himself as P.W.1, and denied having given any such permission. The tank was constructed some time in June-July, 1975 and the petition itself was filed immediately thereafter. It is unimaginable that the landlord would have filed the petition if really he had given permission. Apart from that, the tapping of water by putting up a "T" pipe in the middle before the water reaches the overhead tank could not be accepted as not a waste. It is not only a waste but also a nuisance In the sense, that it will diminish the supply of water to other tenants also. In any case, he should have obtained the consent of the landlord before he put up the "T" pipe. The putting up of this is also a part of the same scheme of putting up of the water tank inside the building itself. On this part of the case the learned Counsel for the tenant would only say that from 1975 till this date no other tenant has complained. The petition was filed within about six months of the act complained of. The other tenants had not been examined by the tenant to show that there is no complaint. It is true that the landlord could have examined them. But it is obvious from the facts that in a place where water is scarce, if the tenants tap water before it reaches the tank by cutting the pipeline, it is not only a commission of waste but also it will amount to a nuisance so far as it restricts supply to others and taking of more water than the tenant was entitled to. Under these circumstances I am unable to agree with the courts below that those acts do not entitle the landlord for eviction of the tenants. Accordingly, the petition for eviction is ordered and the respondents-tenants are directed to be evicted. The petition is allowed.