2007 (12) TMI 537 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity and sufficiency of notice to quit.
2. Violation of Clauses (m), (o), and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 by the tenant.
3. Tenant's guilt in causing nuisance and annoyance.

Summary:

1. Validity and Sufficiency of Notice to Quit:
The respondent-landlord filed a suit for eviction and mesne profits u/s 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The trial Court disbelieved the service under certificate of posting and concluded there was no valid notice to quit. However, the appellate Court found that notice to quit was duly served on the defendant, and the High Court confirmed this finding. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusion that there was valid notice to quit, stating that neither Sub-section 6 of Section 13 nor any other provision mandates that notice "to be served by registered post."

2. Violation of Clauses (m), (o), and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882:
The trial Court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove any damage to the suit premises, thus the defendant did not violate the provisions of Sub-section (m), (o), and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. However, the appellate Court and the High Court accepted the evidence of the plaintiff and other documentary evidence, concluding that the defendant caused damage to the collapsible gate and created annoyance. The Supreme Court upheld this factual finding.

3. Tenant's Guilt in Causing Nuisance and Annoyance:
The trial Court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant is guilty of causing nuisance or annoyance. However, the appellate Court and the High Court, based on oral and documentary evidence, concluded that the tenant caused nuisance and annoyance. The Supreme Court concurred with this factual finding, noting specific incidents of threatening behavior and damage to property.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the First Appellate Court as affirmed by the High Court, stating:
(a) Activities of threatening to kill the plaintiff, beating the son of the plaintiff, and abusing him with filthy language amounted to nuisance and annoyance, furnishing a ground of eviction u/s 13(1)(e) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
(b) Causing damage to the collapsible gate and putting up a concrete elevation of the floor amounted to acts contrary to Clauses (m), (o), and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, furnishing a ground of eviction u/s 13(1)(b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.

The appeal was dismissed, granting the appellant two months to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondents. No costs were awarded.