SATPAL CHAUDHARY Vs. SHOBHANA MATHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A decree of eviction has been passed against the appellant by the Addl. District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur after a finding was recorded by the trial court to the effect that the appellant committed default in payment of rent and also committed nuisance within the meaning of Section 13 (1) (d) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred as `act' ). Hence the suit which was filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-appellant was decreed. In addition the defendant-appellant was also held liable to pay at the rate of Rs. 100/-per month for using the lawn of the building since the said lawn was held not to have been let out to the defendant-appellant by the plaintiff-respondent. A first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure was thereafter preferred by the defendant-appellant before a learned Single Judge of this Court who was pleased to dismiss the appeal after scrutinising the evidence on the issue of nuisance and thus upheld the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. This special appeal has now been preferred by the appellant under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant challenging the judgment and decree of the court below has submitted that the evidence led by the plaintiff-respondent in order to prove the factum of nuisance is wholly unreliable and is not fit to be believed and hence the finding arrived at by the courts below is fit to be struck down as invalid. According to the learned counsel the learned Single Judge has erred in accepting the oral evidence of the witnesses in support of the case of the plaintiff and the finding of fact arrived at by the learned Single Judge while hearing the first appeal is vitiated on account of non-appreciation of the evidence. Thus in substance it has been submitted that the factum of nuisance which is a ground of eviction provided under Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act is fit to be struck down as invalid and the decree of eviction on this ground is not fit to be sustained. It has further been contended that the decree for payment of Rs. 100/-per month for using the lawn which according to the plaintiff-respondent was not in the tenancy of the appellant is also erroneous as the lawn was jointly used by all the tenants as also the landlord-respondent. The arguments have been advanced to the effect that the tenant-appellant cannot be held guilty of nuisance and in support of this submission reliance has been placed on several judgments in order to reinforce the submission that the defendant-appellant cannot be held guilty of committing nuisance.