Case: Gulam Husain Mirza Vs Laxmidas Premji Alias Sagar Premji And Anr.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Judges | B.A. Masodkar, J. |
| Issue | Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') - Section 13(1)(c) |
| Citation | 1984 (1) BomCR 520, 1984 MhLJ 215 |
| Judgement Date | December 15, 1983 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
B.A. Masodkar, J.
-
The petitioner is the tenant. He has been subjected to a decree for possession under section 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the trial Court and that decree has been affirmed by the Appeal Court. The petitioner-tenant questions that decree in this writ petition.
-
The landlords, who are the respondents, are the purchasers of this property. They became owners by reason of their purchase on December 26, 1968. The respondents-landlords are the occupants of the second floor premises in the same building. The petitioner tenant who was inducted as the tenant prior to the purchase by the predecessors of the landlords, is the tenant with regard to three rooms on the third floor and one room called a "terrace room" on the top floor, which is the terrace floor. The respondents landlords served a notice as per Ex. 184 complaining of the conduct of the petitioner-tenant that he had trespassed on the terrace of the top floor of the building and had appropriated a major portion of the terrace by putting flower pots and further he was excluding everyone, including the respondents-landlords, to the use of the said terrace. He was using water from the water tank on the top floor directly for the purpose of maintaining a garden of flower pots to the deteriment of other occupiers. He was using the entire terrace as the part of his exclusive property by putting stones, and all that was necessary to keep up the flower plants and for nursing and tending the flower plants. Eventually, the suit was filed that all these amounted to nuisance and annoyance. The petitioner-tenant took the stand that the entire terrace was part of his tenement and that he was exclusively entitled to use the same to the exclusion of others. He further asserted that he was justified in putting the flower pots in a part of the area of the terrace. That terrace admeasures 90' x 50'.
-
Both the courts below concurrently found in favour of the respondents-landlords and against the petitioner-tenant's claim that the terrace was the part of his tenement. Further, they found that the acts of the petitioner-tenant with regard to the said terrace in appropriating the same for putting the flower pots, though large in number, excluding others from its use and also taking water directly for watering the flower plant all constituted together the acts of nuisance and annoyance. Even during the course of the trial the petitioner-tenant categorically stated on oath that he would not allow the respondent-landlords to use the terrace as of right. Having taken that oath into account, both the courts below have found that the provisions of section 13(1)(c) were squarely attracted.
-
Considerable arguments were advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant by Mr. Dalvi to submit that the petitioner-tenant could not be held guilty of nuisance or annoyance by reason of his hobby and an assertion of title to the entire terrace. The learned Counsel submitted that the approach of the courts below had not been fair and is affected by technical considerations. Only because the petitioner-tenant failed to establish his right of the terrace, if did not follow that he caused nuisance or annoyance to the respondents-landlords. Who are the immediate occupiers of the property.
-
As against this, Mr. Abhyankar supported the decree by pointing out that the conduct of the petitioner-tenant was highly objectionable, irritating and annoying as without entitlement he appropriated the terrace which was the property of the respondents-landlords and to which the respondents-landlord were, as of right, entitled. In the city like Pune, a terrace at the top floor is a place which affords a facility of reasonable comfort and pleasure and here was the tenant who not only appropriated it to his own use by putting several pots of roses but expressed on oath that he would exclude everyone from the a enjoyment of the terrace. The learned Counsel further pointed out that, admittedly, he had kept flower pots in a considerable portion of the terrace and, in fact, converted the terrace into a flower-pots garden at the cost of the reasonable comfort and pleasure of the other occupiers and also has used the water facility directly from the overhead water tank.
-
Now, it is abundantly clear that the findings recorded by the courts below are justified, and as far act of the petitioner-tenant concerned those are findings of fact. The petitioner-tenant had been setting up a claim to the entire terrace. That terrace is large one and can be reached by a staircase and it can reasonably, if such a claim were not there, be the property available to the respondents-landlord for use and occupation. It can be a place for comfortable use and pleasurable enjoyment to them in a city like Pune. The terrace is a large one, being 90' x 50', and no reasonable standard could be so included as to form part of the tenement of the petitioner-tenant. By reason of having one terrace room. The maximum that the petitioner-tenant would be entitled was a passage to this room and nothing more, but the petitioner-tenant claimed the entire terrace and specifically asserted exclusion of the respondents...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Writ Petition No. 3786 of 1990. Case: Jagdish Brothers Agrawal And Ors. Vs Gayasuddin Abdul Kadar Konkani And Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
...the landlords from using the staircase per se amounts to nuisance and annoyance. In Gulam Hussain v. Laxmidas Premji reported in 1984 MhLJ 215, this court considered what amounts to nuisance and annoyance. In that case, the landlords of the building were occupying second floor while the ten......
-
Writ Petition No. 3786 of 1990. Case: Jagdish Brothers Agrawal And Ors. Vs Gayasuddin Abdul Kadar Konkani And Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
...the landlords from using the staircase per se amounts to nuisance and annoyance. In Gulam Hussain v. Laxmidas Premji reported in 1984 MhLJ 215, this court considered what amounts to nuisance and annoyance. In that case, the landlords of the building were occupying second floor while the ten......