1998 (11) TMI 701 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Default in payment of rent.
2. Acts of waste causing damage to the building.
3. Acts of nuisance to other occupants.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Default in Payment of Rent:
The respondents claimed that the appellant defaulted in paying rent from 1.11.1986 to 30.4.1986, asserting that the rent was increased from Rs. 250/- to Rs. 650/- per month from 1.11.1985. The appellant denied this, maintaining that the rent remained Rs. 250/- per month and was paid without default till March 1988. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority both found in favor of the appellant, concluding that the claim of increased rent was an afterthought, supported by the absence of any mention of the increased rent in the landlords' earlier communications and tax returns. The High Court, however, overturned these findings without thoroughly considering the evidence, merely stating that the lower courts ignored the evidence warranting the conclusion that the tenant was a defaulter.

2. Acts of Waste Causing Damage to the Building:
The respondents alleged that the appellant caused damage to the building by making holes in the flooring and leaving spaces between the shutter and the wall. Both the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority found these damages to be trivial and not impairing the building's value or utility materially. The High Court, however, substituted its findings for those of the lower courts, concluding that the tenant caused damage based on the advocate-commissioner's report. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court overstepped its limited supervisory jurisdiction by making such a substitution.

3. Acts of Nuisance to Other Occupants:
The respondents claimed that the appellant's business operations caused nuisance to other occupants by running machines late at night and quarreling with landlords during rent collection. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority found no substantial evidence of nuisance, considering that the machinery had been in operation since 1970 without prior complaints. The High Court, however, found that the tenant caused nuisance, again without adequately addressing the detailed reasoning of the lower courts. The Supreme Court emphasized that for an act to constitute actionable nuisance, it must be substantial and not merely trivial or evanescent.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by overturning the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on all three grounds without sufficient justification. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and reinstating the decisions of the lower courts.