GOPALAKRISHNA Vs. G SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition at the instance of the landlord arises out of a petition filed under Rent Control Act for eviction on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent, personal requirement and acis of nuisance committed by the tenant The Rent Controller found that the tenant committed acts of nuisance and on this ground ordered eviction. The appellate court found that the lease comprises the building and site as well and in view of the construction of building subsequent to 26--8-1957 Rent Control Act is not applicable and it is further held that bone fide requiredment is not prove ', On the ground of nuisance, it is found that the tenant committed nuisance by starting rope making iudustry in the premises and suit for restrainaing the tenant form making use of the premises for the said industry causing nuisance ultimately ended in a compromise and pursuant to compromise the tenent refrained from rope- making and the machinery installed by the tenant was dismantledas per the compromise decree The appellate court found that nuisance abated and on onsideration of the subseduent event it is held that the landlord is not entitled for eviction.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the question of taking into consideration the subsequent events with regard to the commission of nuisance does not arise as the eviction comes into effect on the day when the nuisance is committed. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that in view of the subsequent event of abatement of nuisance in accordance with compromise arrived at between the parties in the suit, the nuisance does not subsist and as such the petition for eviction on this ground does not survive.

(3.) It may be mentioned that the Rent Control Act is applicable in view of striking down of Sec. 32 (b) of the Rent Control Act.