NARPATCHAND A BHANDARI versus SHANTILAL MOOLSHANKAR JANI AND ANR.

Citation: [1993] 2 S.C.R. 471 · Decided: 18-03-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.M. KASLIWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

NARPATCHAND A BHANDARI 
A 
v. 
SHANTILAL MOOLSHANKAR JANI AND ANR. 
MARCH 18, 1993 
(N.M. KASLIWAL AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
B 
Bombay Rents Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Ac~ 1947 : 
Section 13(1)(c)-Expression 'Landlord'-Scope of-Includes an 
usufructuary mortgagee where the tenanted premises is the subject of usufiuc-
C 
tuary mortgage-Usufructuary mortgagee can file a suit for eviction-
'Nuisance'-For eviction-Ulhat is. 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Sections 58 (d) and 109. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 136. 
Appeal-Concurrent findings of fact-Findings based on appreciation 
of ample evidence-Interference with such findings not called for by Supreme 
Court. 
D 
The appellant-defendant was in occupation of a flat as its tenant in E 
a storeyed building comprised of a large number of flats occupied by 
different tenants. When the owner of that building mortgaged with posses-
sion the said building in favour of respondents-plaintiffs, the appellant-
defendant and other tenants in different flats of that building became 
tenants under respondents-plaintiffs (usufructuary mortgagees) and con-
tinued as such tenants on payment of monthly rents to them. But by a quit F 
notice dated July 3, 1967 the respondents-plaintiffs determined the month-
ly tenancy of the appellant respecting the premises in his occupation and 
sought to recover from him the possession of the premises by instituting 
a suit in the court of Small Causes at Bombay on the very ground on which 
his tenancy was terminated, that is, that the defendant had been guilty of G 
conduct which was a nuisance or annoyance to the adjoining or neighbour-
ing occupiers, under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the 
Bombay Rents H~tel and Lodging House Rates Control Act. 
The trial court, on an appraisal of the oral and documentary 
evidence adduced by the parties, recorded its findings on issues in favour H 
471 
472 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1993) 2 S.C.R. 
A of the respondents-plaintiffs. Consequently it decreed the suit of the 
respondent-plaintiffs for recovery of possession of the premises. The a~ 
pellate court before which the decree of the trial court was appealed 
against by the appellant-defendant, on its re-appraisal of the evidence, 
alll.rmtd the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. 
B 
The findings as to the acts of nuisance and annoyance attributable 
to the api>ellant and the persons who were residing fn the premisesare (i) 
that the appellant erected a Textile Printing Mill on the terrace of the 
storeyed building and ran it during nights so as to make -the occupiers of 
the adjoining and neighbouring tenements suffer the vibrations and noise 
C in the building arising on account of the running of the Mill and loose 
their quiet and sleep during nights; (ii) that he unauthorisedly utilised the 
water st~red. in the common over-head tanks on the terrace, meant for 
domestic use of all the occupiers of the tenements in the building, for 
running bis Mill ·a non-domestic purpose; (iii) that the appellant and the 
person~ residing with him in the premises had often removed the radio 
D 
aerials and T.V. antenas of the occupiers of the adjoining and neighbour· 
ing tenaments which had been fixed above the common terrace of the 
building; (iv) that they were wrong!.)'. preventing the respondents· plaintiffs 
and their workers in reaching the common terrace for repairs of radio 
aerials, T.V. antenas, telephone lines and the like of the occupiers of the 
E neighbouring tenaments in the building by blocking its staircase. 
F 
I 
Feeling aggrieved by the decree of the trial court and its affirmation 
by the appellate court, the defendant impugned the same by filing a writ 
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court of 
Bombay, but that writ petition was rejected in limine. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellants 
(a) that an usufructuary mortgage of tenanted premises cannot file a suit 
'--( 
for recovecy or its possession from the tenant under section 13(1) (c) or 
the Act; (b) the findings of the appellate court recorded respecting acts of 
G nuisance and annoyance not having been based on the evidence on record, 
become unsustainable; (c) the acts found to have been committed by the 
appellant-defendant and the persons residing with him in the premises, 
even if are- true, they could not have been regarded as acts amounting to 
-?-
nuisance or annoyance

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.