RAFAT ALI versus SUGNI BAI AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 20 · Decided: 18-11-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
RAFAT ALI 
v. 
SUGNI BAI AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 18, 1998 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] 
Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 
1960 : Sections 10(2), (iii), (iv), 20 and 22. 
Reyision-Power of High Court-Scope and extent of-Eviction 
proceedings-Grounds taken by landlord-Findings given by Rent Controller 
against landlord-Findings upheld by Appellate authority-Reversal of 
concurrent findings by High Court in revision-Held not justified 
Rent Control-Eviction on the ground of nuisance-Difference between 
D public and private nuisance-Section 10(2)(iv) envisages private nuisance 
and not public nuisance-Damage must be proved in case of nuisance-
Damage to amount to actionable nuisance must be substantial. 
Rent control-Eviction-Ground-Damage caused by tenant to the 
E building-Extent required for eviction-Some impairment caused to building 
is not enough-Damage complained of must have lessened the utility or 
value of the building. 
In eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent-landlord against the 
appellant-tenant, under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, 
F Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, the Rent Controller gave his findings 
against the landlord on all the three grounds taken by him. 
Landlord's ground of default in payment of rent was found to be an 
afterthought His plea of alleged nuisance caused by tenant to other occupiers 
of the buildinf: by running lathe machines late in the night was rejected on 
G the gropnd that the appellant was running his business with the same 
machines right from the beginning. Regarding the alleged damage caused 
to the building by the tenant, the Rent Controller, on the basis of the 
Commissioner's report, found that due to use of machinery by tenant there 
was no damage to roof and walls and a hole caused in the flooring for 
inserting pipe was only trivial not affecting the building. The appellate 
H 
20 
, 
' 
-"'"' 
RAFA TALI v. SUGNIBAI 
21 
authority also found, in concurrence with the findings of the Rent Controller, A 
that the landlord failed to make out any of the grounds. On revision, the High 
Court reversed the concurrent findings of the Courts below and passed an 
order of eviction in favour of the landlord. Hence this appeal by tenant. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
B 
HELD: 1. It was not open to the High Court to suhstitute the findings 
of the lower courts with its own findings wh.ile exercising the limited 
supervisory jurisdiction. The appellation given to Section 22 of the Andhra 
Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 makes it 
unmistakably clear that the power conferred thereunder is revisional which 
means, it is a power of supervision. It is well neigh settled that a revisional C 
jurisdiction cannot be equated with 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 D 
the enactments wherein the words are not so widely framed. Nonetheless, 
they remain in the realm of supervisory jurisdiction. In this case the High 
Court has manifestly crossed its jurisdiction. (24-D-E-F) 
Sar/a Ahuja v. United India Insurance Company Limited, JT (1998) 7 
SC 297 and Sri Raj Lakshmi Dyeing Works v. Rangaswamy, (1980) 4 SCC E 
259, referred to. 
2. Though the word "nuisance" is not defined it can be inferred from 
the context that what is meant therein is the actionable nuisance which is 
recognised in Common Law. Nuisance as understood in law is broadly divided 
into two classes-public nuisance and private nuisance. 
The former consists of some acts or omissions which result in violation 
of rights which one enjoys in common with other members of the public. But 
the latter i.e. private nuisance, is one which interferes with a person's use 
and enjoyment of immovable property or some right in respect of it. 
F 
(26-D-EJ G 
3. 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 neighbourhood". Perhaps in a wide 
sense any industrial activity may create some sound while such act

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