AMARCHAND HARAKCHAND KASWA Vs. RAMANLAL SHANTILAL PORWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Shantilal Hemchand Porwal was the owner of the building bearing City Survey No. 368 and situated at Guruwar Peth, Pune. The petitioner in this petition is the tenant of a room on the ground floor of the said building. After determining the tenancy of the petitioner the said Shantilal Porwal filed a suit, being Civil Suit No. 2959 of 1972, against the petitioner for possession of the room, hereinafter referred to as "the suit premises", on the ground that the petitioner was guilty of a conduct which was a nuisance and/or annoyance to the adjoining occupiers, as mentioned in section 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay Rent Act." Though originally in the suit a ground was also urged for possession on the ground that the petitioner was in arrears of rent, that ground was rightly given up because after the notice issued under section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act the petitioner had sent the amount by money order which was refused by the said Shantilal. During the pendency of the suit Shantilal died and his heirs and legal representatives were brought on record and they are respondents Nos. 1 to 5 in this petition. They will hereinafter be referred to as "the respondents". Respondent No. 6 is a formal party, he being the Judge of the appellate Court below.

(2.) What is apparently a finding of fact is challenged in this petition. It is, therefore, necessary for me to narrate briefly what exactly was alleged and what exactly has been held proved by the courts below. The case for annoyance and nuisance was based upon the following three allegations :---

(3.) In support of their case the respondents examined Kiran, who is respondent No. 2 before me, and one tenant who was staying on the first floor of the building. He is Bhikoba Dhamanskar. Both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the tenants keep bicycles in the passage, that they also take water from the drums which are kept near the sink and that they also throw rubbish in the tank. The question to which the two Courts below had to address themselves was whether by these acts the petitioner has caused nuisance or annoyance in the legal sense. What constitutes nuisance has not been defined either in the Bombay Rent Act or in any other Act. In Walter v. Salfe, Sir Lancelot Knight Bruce, V.C., has attempted a definition which may be found workable in the following terms :