9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were reversed and an order of eviction was granted in favour of the landlords. Hence, appellant has filed this appeal by special leave. 3. Three distinct grounds have been set up by the respondents in their petition filed under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (For short the Act'). They are: (1) that the tenant had committed default in paying rent of the building from 1.11.1986 to 30.4.1986, (2) that the tenant committed acts of waste by which damage has been caused to the building, (3) that the tenant has been committing acts of nuisance to other occupants of the buildings in the neighbour-hood. 4. All the three grounds were found against the respondent by the Rent Control Court which dismissed the petition for eviction. When respondents filed appeal under Section 20 of the Act, the Appellate Authority also found, in concurrence with the findings of the Rent Control court, that the landlord failed to make out any one of the grounds. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. It was when respondents moved the High Court in revision under Section 22 of the Act that they succeeded as a learned single judge interfered with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal powers in all its parameters. The power to call for and examine the records is for the purpose of the High Court to satisfy itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of the order of the lower authority. Even such a widely worded frame of the Section may at best indicate that the revisional powers are not so restricted as in the enactments wherein the words are not so widely framed. Nonetheless, they remain in the realm of supervisory jurisdiction. In a recent decision we had occasion to consider the scope of revisional jurisdiction under certain Rent Control enactments vide Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Limited AIR1999SC100 . Reference was then made to a decision wherein similar words used under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 were considered [vide Sri Raj Lakshmi Dyeing Works v. Rangaswamy AIR1980SC1253 ]. A two judge bench has observed therein that despite wide language employed in the Section, the High Court quite obviously should not interfere with the findings of fact merely because it does not agree with to the finding of the subordinate authority. After adverting to it we have stated in Sarla Ahuja: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nditure account in which monthly rent of Rs. 250/ - was mentioned for the relevant period. The appellate authority has also adverted to the above materials. The counterfoils (P-1 to P-5) produced by the landlords did not give a good impression as to its genuineness on both the authorities. The appellate authority felt that they were concocted for the purpose of evicting the tenants. 11. For interfering with the findings made on the above reasoning learned Single Judge has, unfortunately, used only one sentence which is the following: If we compare the evidence adduced in this case and reading of the same by both the courts below, it can be said without hesitation that the courts below are not justified in ignoring the evidence available which warrants this Court to hold that the tenant was a defaulter and he had caused nuisance. 12. Learned Single Judge has committed a jurisdictional error in upsetting the concurrent finding in such a manner as it has been done. Of course in that sweep learned Single Judge covered the nuisance aspect also. 13. It is Clause (iv) of Section 10(2) of the Act that makes nuisance as a ground for eviction. It is worded like this: That the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance to the occupiers of other portions in the same building or buildings in the neighborhood . Perhaps in a wide sense any industrial activity may create some sound while such activities are in operation. Such sound may be uncomfortable to those who are over sensitive to such noise. But then care must be taken because every inconvenience cannot become actionable nuisance. To make it actionable the nuisance must be of a reasonably perceptible degree as pointed out earlier. 18. Rent Control Court considered landlords' case regarding nuisance. Landlords said that the tenant was quarreling with them whenever they go for collection of rents. They have also alleged that appellant was running machines late in the night and thereby causing nuisance to the other occupiers of the building. As the appellant was running high business with the same machines right from the beginning, Rent Control Court was not inclined to treat such noise as amounting to nuisance. Appellate authority pointed out that there was no complaint prior to the filing of the eviction petition at any time against the tenant that he caused damage to the building. On the other hand, the Rent Control Court notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
