Case: Rafat Ali Vs. Sugni Bai

2. A building situate at Mahboob Gunj, Hyderabad belonged to one Babu Lal. He leased it out to the appellant in 1970 wherein appellant has been running a business by name M/s Royal Agro Industries. Lathe and machinery have been installed therein for the purpose of the business. Babu Lal died leaving behind him the present respondents as his legal heirs who are his widow and children. In the year 1988 respondents/landlords launched a litigation against the appellant for evicting him from the leased premises. Though the respondents failed in the Rent Control Court as well as in the Appellate Authority they succeeded in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, wherein a revision the concurrent findings were reversed and an order of eviction was granted in favour of the landlords. Hence, appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.2. 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 neigbourhood.3. 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 the concurrent findings regarding all the three grounds.4. Learned single judge has stated as follows in the concluding part of the impugnedfindings of the Courts below are quite arbitrary, perverse and capricious. The orders under challenge cannot be said as free from legal lacunae. The Courts failed to take into consideration the events started subsequent to leasing out the premises, namely, causing nuisance prior to the filing of eviction petition. The evidence given clearly establishes that the tenant was a defaulter, had caused damage to the premises and causing nuisance to the landlords and other occupiers. Having found that the order under challenge suffer from illegality, the same deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the CRP is allowed and the orders under challenge are set aside and consequently, the eviction sought by the landlord is granted.It is contended before us that learned single judge made those observations without considering the reasoning of the fact finding courts and without adverting to the evidence and without keeping within the bounds of revisional jurisdiction conferred by Section 22 of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, made an endeavour to show that the revisional powers under the Act are not so limited as in other similar enactments and that the High Court has wide powers to interfere even with the concurring findings of fact, and looking from that angle the High Court has not acted beyond its jurisdiction.

Reasoning: 14. It is clear from clause (iv) of Section 10(2) of the Act that what is envisaged therein is only private nuisance and not public nuisance. This can be discerned from the words "nuisance to the occupiers of other portions in the same building or buildings in the neigbourhood." 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 nuiance must be of a reasonably perceptible degree as pointed out earlier.15. Rent Control Court considered landlords case regarding nuisance. Landlords said that the tenant was quarrelling 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 filing of the eviction petition at any time against the tenant that the he caused damage to the building." On the other hand, the Rent Control Court noticed that machinery was installed in this building way back in 1970 and the same is under operation even now. On the above reasoning both the authorities uniformly concluded that tenant has not committed any act of nuisance to attract the ground of eviction. But the High Court upset such a finding in a very casual manner unmindful of the inherent limitations of the revisional jurisdiction.The third ground for eviction is related to causing damage to the building. For damage to the building to amount to a ground for eviction, its proportion must as delineated in clause (iii) of Section 10(2) of thethe tenant has committed such acts of waste as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building.All acts of waste do not amount to a ground for eviction. It is only those acts of waste which would very probably impair the value of the building or its utility. The word "likely" in the above clause must be understood as a condition which is reasonably probable that such acts would cause impairment to the value or utility of the building. However, it is not enough that some impairment has been caused to the building. The value of the building or utility thereof should have been lessened in a reasonably substantial degree. Then only it can be said that the acts of waste are likely to impair the value or utility of the building "materially".An Advocate-Commissioner visited the building and pointed out the following features in his report regarding the damage noticed by him: "There is only concrete flooring with uneven surface. Due to the use of machinery there is a hole in the flooring on the eastern side and it was meant for inserting pipe. There was no damage to the roof and walls. Some nail-holes were also noticed. When the lathe machines were operated the Advocate Commissioner noticed that there was no vibration either on the ground floor or on the walls of the main building though very slight vibration was noticed on the parapet walls of the first floor."18. Both the fact finding courts found that the above items of damage are only trivial and will not affect the building. But the High Court found that "the landlords proved that the tenant caused damage to the demises premises by causing holes and leaving spaces between the shutter and the wall as seen from the Commissioners report." It was not open to the High Court to substitute the findings of the lower courts with its own findings so easily as that while exercising the limited supervisory jurisdiction.