1 W.P. No. 3196.94 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 3196 OF 1994 Amarlal S/o Gajdhar Agrawal, Age 52 years, Occu. Service, R/o Satara File, Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. . .PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Saraswati Onkardas Agrawal, died through his L.Rs. 1-A Mrs. Sangita Sunil Agrawal, Age years, 1-B Mrs. Sunita Anil Agrawal, Age 28 years, Occu : Both R/o Saraf Bazar at Bhusawal, Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. 2. Sureshchandra S/o Gajdhar Agrawal, Age 42 years, Occu. Service, 3. Shashikant S/o Gajdhar Agrawal, Age 39 years, Occu. Service. 4. Smt. Gaeshibai W/o Gajdhar Agrawal, Age 65 years, Occu. 2 W.P. No. 3196.94 House hold. (deleted as per order dated 13-04-04 passed in C.A. No. 3317/02) Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 R/o: M.H.No. 3238, Satara File, Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon ..RESPONDENTS ... Shri L.V. Sangit, Advocate for petitioner Shri S.S. Bora, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1-A & 1-B CORAM :- S.V. GANGAPURWALA JJ. DATE:- 2nd August, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard. Shri Sangit, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri S.S. Bora, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1-A and 1-B. 2. The present respondent had filed suit for possession and recovery of arrears of rent under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. The land-lord sought eviction on multifarious grounds. The Trial Court decreed 3 W.P. No. 3196.94 the suit of the land-lord for eviction on the ground that the tenant has committed default and he is guilty of creating nuisance. The tenant preferred an appeal before the District Court. The District Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the finding of the Trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, tenant has filed present Writ Petition. 3. Shri Sangit, leanred counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner had tendered the money orders in respect of the rent, but the same were not accepted by the land-lord. In such circumstances, though the land- lord alleged that the tenant is a defaulter, the same would not be sufficient ground for eviction. The learned counsel further contended that the tenant never created nuisance, single incident of selling of crackers does not come within the ambit and purview of nuisance. As such, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the decree for eviction passed, is erroneous. 4. Shri Bora, learned counsel for respondents submit 4 W.P. No. 3196.94 that the land-lord never refused to accept the payment of rent. The Money Order coupons, as alleged by the tenant, are never received by the land-lord. The tenant is selling the fire crackers, and it is not one incident but during the Diwali festival he sales, the crackers which comes within the ambit of purview of nuisance. 5. With the assistance of learned counsel, I have gone through the impugned Judgment. It is not disputed that the land-lord is put in possession of the suit property in execution proceedings. Both the Courts concurrently, on appreciation of evidence, held that the tenant is guilty of default. The tenant could not prove the endorsement of postman,. It is not that the land-lord had refused the rent, as the address was in-complete, the Money Orders did not reach the land-lord, so there is no refusal on the part of land-lord. The Court below has properly dealt with this aspect. Though the premises was given for running grocery shop, but the tenant admitted that he was selling crackers on the occasion of Diwali. In the wake of 5 W.P. No. 3196.94 admission of selling of crackers by the petitioner in his shop, the Courts below have properly held that it amounts to creating a nuisance. 6. The Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence in this regard. As such, Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J ] SDM* August-11