AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.G. Vaidyanatha, J.—This is a Writ Petition directed against the Judgment dated 31.1.1995 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 271 of 1991 on the file of the second Additional District Judge, Solapur. Heard both the sides.
It appears the original landlord Venkatesh filed an eviction suit against the Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Venkatesh died during the pendency of the suit and his heirs were brought on record who are Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in this Writ petition.
The tenants contested the suit.
After trial, the trial Court allowed eviction suit only on one ground namely, that the act of the tenant amounts to nuisance and annoyance. The trial Court rejected the other two grounds.
The tenants challenged the eviction decree by filing an appeal before the District Court. The Landlords also challenged the adverse findings against them regarding the other two grounds by filing cross-objections.
After hearing both the sides, the learned appellate Judge dismissed the Appeal filed by the tenants and allowed the cross-objections of the Landlords by recording finding that the requirement of the landlords is bona fide and reasonable and that the tenant has made permanent construction without the written consent of the Landlord. Therefore, one of the tenants namely, the original second Defendant has come up with this Writ Petition.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has questioned the correctness and legality of the impugned Judgment. The learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have supported the Impugned Judgment.
As far as the grounds for eviction u/s 13(1)(c) of the Rent Act, the Landlord''s case was that the tenants are using the premises for gambling activity where playing cards are going on and therefore it causes nuisance and annoyance. Both the Courts below have given concurrent findings that this ground has been made out. Both the Courts have considered the evidence of the Plaintiff, one neighbour, the report of the Commissioner, the panchanama and the fact that criminal case had been booked against the tenant for gambling activity in the suit premises. It is on the basis of the appreciation of evidence, both the Courts have given concurrent finding that nuisance and annoyance are made out within the meaning of Section 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has questioned the correctness and legality of these concurrent findings. I am afraid this Court cannot be expected to reappreciate the evidence and take a different view in Writ Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is purely a question of fact based on appreciation of evidence.
The fact that playing cards with stakes of money has been going on cannot be disputed in the face of evidence before the Court. It may be that the tenant was acquitted in the criminal case; But proof in a Civil Court is of a different degree than a criminal case, where a fact has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. When the premises was raided by the police on the ground of gambling and the accused had been booked and in the face of findings on the other evidence available on record it cannot be said that both Courts below have committed any illegality or infirmity so as to call for interference by this Court.
I am also not impressed by the argument of the learned Counsel of the Petitioner that the theory of waiver pressed into service on the basis of an authority which is u/s 13(1)(c) of the Rent Act, So far as Section 13(1)(c) is concerned, it provides for eviction on the ground of tenant making any permanent structure without the consent of the landlord in writing. There is no blanket provision against construction but what is contemplated is construction without a written consent. It is in that context there are some decisions which state that the landlord must be deemed to have given his consent regarding permanent construction. Such an interpretation cannot be pressed into service which is covered by Section 13(1)(c) of the Rent Act. After hearing the learned Counsel of both the sides, I find that as far as the ground u/s /both 13(1)(c) of the Rent Act is concerned/the Courts below have on proper appreciation of evidence have recorded a finding which is not open to challenge in this Court. Hence the Order of eviction on that ground cannot be disturbed.
As far as the other two grounds are concerned, I find that the contention of the learned Counsel of the Petitioner has great force and he has arguable points. But no purpose will be served. So far these two grounds are concerned it will be a purely academic exercise to find out whether the landlords have proved the other two grounds or not if the eviction has to be confirmed regarding the ground u/s 13(1)(c) of the Rent Act. Hence I feel that no useful purpose would be served in admitting the Petition regarding two other grounds though they raise some arguable points.
In the result, the Writ Petition is rejected at the admission stage. On the request of the learned Counsel of the petitioner, the Order of eviction is stayed for a period of six weeks from today. However, the Petitioner is directed not to part with possession nor to create any third party rights.