PUSHPA BAI Vs. A. SULOCHANA MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under section 21 of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act (XX of 1954) is to revise the order dated 21st June, 1956, made by the District Judge, Secunderabad, as appellate authority, whereby he upheld the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and directed the petitioner to deliver vacant possession by 1st August, 1956.

(2.) The respondent is landlady of house No. 11 of Maredpally. She resides in the ground-floor while her tenant, the petitioner, resides in the first-floor. The petitioner is in possession of an out-house and a verandah also on the ground-floor but the landlady complains that she got into possession thereof by force and that similarly she was in illegal occupation of a motor garage as well which she had vacated in June, 1954, as a result of great persuasion. Her further grievance is that the tenant has buffaloes which are tied in the out-house quite near to the bed-room causing bad smell. This is said to have also contributed to the enormous growth of files and mosquitoes as a result of which the members of her family had to suffer from illness. She alleged that much damage has been done to the flooring on account of the dung-cakes prepared and put there and that the damage done to to lawns and flower plants besides by the buffaloes is not inconsiderable. Her further complaint was that the tenant is guilty of several acts of waste. On these and on a further ground that the landlady required additional accommodation, an application was made under section 15 of Act XX of 1954 to the Rent Controller. The landlady failed to prove acts of waste and personal requirement of the entire portion of the house to the satisfaction of the Rent Controller who however found other grounds to be true. He found that the occupation of the out-hose and verandah was unauthorised and that the nuisance caused by reason of the buffaloes is not inconsiderable for the whole atmosphere was rendered dirty and insanitary and much damage was done to the lawns and flower beds. Thus he found a case under section 15 (2) (b) (iv) was made out warranting a direction for eviction of the tenant. The appellate authority in appeal agreed with this conclusion and passed the impugned order.

(3.) The learned counsel argued before me that since the buffaloes have been sold away after the order of the Rent Controller, there can no longer be any question of nuisance and that his request therefore is that taking this subsequent fact into consideration the relief to which the tenant is entitled may be granted in this revision petition and the order of eviction be set aside. His further contention is that the incidents of keeping or tying of buffaloes, preparing dung-cakes, etc., do not in fact or in law amount to nuisance and hence the order of both the original and appellate authorities ought not to stand. Both these arguments, in my judgment, are wholly untenable.