RENU OHRI Vs. MALTI NEGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord has preferred this petition against the order of the learned Appellate Authority accepting the appeal instituted by the respondent-tenant ordering his eviction from the suit premises.

(2.) The petitioner-landlord instituted an eviction petition under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') against the respondent-tenant on the averments that the respondent has changed the user of the premises from residential to non- residential and is guilty of causing nuisance which has materially affected the health, comfort and convenience of the landlord, tenants and his neighbours. On the settled issues, the learned Rent Controller holds that the respondent-tenant was guilty of causing acts of nuisance in the premises. The Court holds that the landlord had established that one room of the tenanted premises had been converted into a temple by the respondent-tenant allowing easy access to the public at large and a loud speaker was used for broadcasting religious discourses and Bhajan etc. From the evidence of the witnesses the Court holds that some of the tenants had left the premises only because of the nuisance created by the respondent. The tenant appealed to the learned Appellate Authority who has set aside the judgment.

(3.) A number of grounds have been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention that the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority cannot be sustained. Without dealing with these submissions in detail, I find that the Appellate Authority being the final Court of fact was duty bound to consider all the grounds raised before it before coming to the conclusion as to whether the petitioner was entitled to a decree of eviction, as prayed for. It merely places an interpretation on Section 14 of the Act to hold as to what acts would constitute actionable nuisance. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these findings are contrary to the well established law. do not wish to express any opinion on the respective merits of the contentions urged by the parties before me because I find from the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority that the questions of fact, which would constitute the basis of the eviction order, have not been discussed or analyzed by the Court below.