SUNDER Vs. LALTA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal. This appellant who is the landlord of the house in dispute brought a suit for ejectment against the respondent who is her tenant on various allegations. The learned Munsif decreed the suit, holding that the appellant was entitled to eject the respondent as he had been creating a nuisance. Against the decree of the learned Munsif, there was an appeal by the respondent to the lower appellate Court. The learned Civil Judge allowed the appeal and, dismissed the plaintiff's suit, holding that it could not in law be said that the defendant had been creating a nuisance and that it was, therefore, necessary for her (the plaintiff) to obtain the District Magistrate's permission before bringing the suit under the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (3 of 1947 ). The. plaintiff has come up in appeal to this Court.

(2.) IN dismissing the plaintiff's suit and allowing the defendant's appeal, the learned Judge has not dissented from the finding of the trial. Court that the defendant's 'behaviour towards the plaintiff-appellant has been highly objectionable. Both the plaintiff and the defendant live in the house, the defendant being a tenant of only a portion of it. According to the learned Munsif with whose finding on this part the learned Civil Judge has not recorded any dissent, the defendant had been ill-treating the lady, abusing her and beating her. The learned. Judge's view is that the fact that the lady was ill-treated, abused and beaten would make the respondent liable for prosecution in a criminal court but it could not constitute, in his opinion, any act creating a nuisance. Under Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, no suit shall, without the permission of the District Magistrate, be filed in any civil court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation, except on one or more of the grounds enumerated therein. Under Sub-section (d) of that section a tenant can be evicted if he creates a nuisance. The question is whether the acts of ill-treating, abusing and beating the landlord who happens to be ah old lady and who is residing in a part of the house constitute a nuisance or not, The learned. Judge appears to think that creating a nuisance means using the accommodation in such a manner as to inake it unfit for human occupation or keeping it extremely dirty or putting it to a use which might have the effect, of depreciating the value of the property in future. I think the words "creating a nuisance" are capable of a wider interpretation. They include, on the part of the tenant in my opinion, acts and behaviours which make it extremely inconvenient for the landlord or any other tenant occupying a portion of the house to live in it in a peaceful manner. A person who abuses his position as a tenant by resorting to acts of violence against his landlord who is occupying a portion of the house creates, in my opinion, a nuisance such as would entitle the landlord to go to a court of law and seek his ejectment without the permission of the District magistrate under Section 3 of the Act. To put any other interpretation upon the words "creating a nuisance" would be to put a premium on gross misbehaviour on the part of a tenant occupying a house in a portion of which his landlord also happens to be staying. (3) For the reasons given, I hold that the judgment of the lower appellate court is erroneous in law. I, therefore, allow the appeal with costs, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court and decree the plaintiffs suit.